Destroying artwork

[A. G. Maisey]

In many countries across the board firearms registration is required. This sometimes becomes ridiculous to the point of idiocy, for instance, in NSW, Australia, it is required to register and possess a licence to use, a child's BB gun.

History demonstrates that frequently registration of those things not favoured by ruling entities is a precursor to seizure.

The problem is that this business of ivory seizure is only a symptom of the overall changes in societal values, values that many of us, myself included, have a great deal of difficulty in accepting as either desirable or legitimate.

The fact that these societal changes have been accepted by an overwhelming percentage of the populace in countries that subscribe to the current form of Western Democracy has only been made possible by social engineering.

It is not possible to reason with fanatics. These anti-ivory beings are not logical people, they subscribe to a system of belief that in many of its aspects is immoral, rotten, and undermines the very fabric of a just and moderate society.

Certainly it is always best to try to win any conflict without actually getting involved in a fight, but when one is dealing with people who live in accordance with a belief system that in many of its philosophies parallels a religious belief, one must question if it is possible to defeat these beings without drawing a little blood? (figuratively speaking, of course)

For those who are directly affected by these obnoxious imitations of humanity and the edicts that they have generated, perhaps the writings of Sun Tzu may be of use.

[estcrh]

Basically, if you live in the US, your ivory hilted and inlaid weapons are not legal to sell or transport, you would have to get a permit which in most cases would be impossible from what I am reading. Anyone have a different opinion. Soon European countries may inact the same or similar total bans, then what?

http://www.fws.gov/international/tra...nswers.html#27

http://www.fws.gov/policy/do210A1.pdf

https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-201...2015-18487.pdf

[Bob A]

The Association of Applied Paleontological Sciences has a website that seems to track individual state laws regarding ivory. The definition of what comprises "ivory" has been expanded to an otherwise ridiculous extent (if it were not for its state of origin) in California.

http://www.aaps-journal.org/Fossil-I...gislation.html

Governments have gotten way out of hand.

The firearms restrictions mentioned by Alan are in effect to some degree even in firearm-friendly USA, notably in CA, NY, NJ, MA and MD, which states are noteworthy in their crusade against ivory ownership. Elsewhere, as forces of PC activism have managed to roil the waters regarding police maintenance of social order, restrictions have been eased by a remarkable extent, as the populace acts to take up arms while it is still possible to do so. This gives me hope that the pendulum is swinging back toward a more rational worldview overall. It may take a generation or so to do so, of course.

Meanwhile, hold your politically incorrect antique artifacts closely, transfer them by inheritance, which is currently about the only legal course, and locate all those receipts which you kept since the 1970s.

It may be too early to contemplate the maxims of Sun Tzu, but it seems that only those of us of a certain advanced age recall the relative freedoms which we enjoyed in our youth. It may be that we will be called upon to attempt their reinstatement.

[estcrh]

Originally Posted by Bob A

Meanwhile, hold your politically incorrect antique artifacts closely, transfer them by inheritance, which is currently about the only legal course, and locate all those receipts which you kept since the 1970s.

Bob, inheritance does not give the current owner any rights as far as I can see until you do some further proving of the inherited item....there is no excape except for a few determined individuals who just happen to have the rare proof needed to be granted an exemption.

[Rick]

"What're you in for?"
"Inheriting a 200 year old Ivory handled sword."

[estcrh]

Originally Posted by Rick

"What're you in for?"
"Inheriting a 200 year old Ivory handled sword."

They are all "bone" hilted swords and daggers as of now!!!

[ariel]

What about walrus ivory?
Rhino?

[estcrh]

Originally Posted by ariel

What about walrus ivory?
Rhino?

Ariel, very problematic, rhino is now "horn" and walrus is bone, I have also seen several sellers lately that somehow forgot to mention the hilt material at all on items they were selling. I think if not sold soon we may eventually have almost no way of selling these items and will just have to keep them as momentos. I just went through what I owned and found several suspect items I forgot about, not sure what to do now.

[Battara]

As I see it, 4 things that contribute at a foundational level to this issue:

1. the problem of telling the difference between pre-ban 1976 and 1989 ivory versus recent "kill" ivory.

2. laziness of administrators not bothering to learn the difference between 100 aged ivory and recent ivory.

3. the question of fossilzed ivory

4. the problem of illegal black market ivory pumped into the US - a HUGE underground market

[Roland_M]

Greed meet Vandalism.
No respect for nothing except money.
Poor and hollowly modern world.

[Bob A]

Originally Posted by ariel

What about walrus ivory?
Rhino?

The trend is for the various individual states to ban all forms of ivory, to keep it simple. (See link above).

[Rick]

Antiques incorporating ivory no longer cross the auction block in MA.

[David]

Originally Posted by Battara

As I see it, 4 things that contribute at a foundational level to this issue:

1. the problem of telling the difference between pre-ban 1976 and 1989 ivory versus recent "kill" ivory.

2. laziness of administrators not bothering to learn the difference between 100 aged ivory and recent ivory.

3. the question of fossilzed ivory

4. the problem of illegal black market ivory pumped into the US - a HUGE underground market

We did discuss this once before i believe, but a test has been developed for at least determining if an ivory object is pre-1947 or not though carbon-14 tests.
http://www.scotsman.com/news/environ...-ban-1-1363787
Obviously there should be no problem at all determining the legitimacy of fossilized ivory.

[kronckew]

Originally Posted by David

We did discuss this once before i believe, but a test has been developed for at least determining if an ivory object is pre-1947 or not though carbon-14 tests.
http://www.scotsman.com/news/environ...-ban-1-1363787
Obviously there should be no problem at all determining the legitimacy of fossilized ivory.

...carbon 14 tests are not cheap. in 2012 it cost around £450 (US$ 650) per. might be worth it on the upper end items tho.

[Bob A]

All very distressing in the face of a legal system that is based on the premise that one is innocent until proven guilty, with the burden of proof on the prosecution.

[David]

Originally Posted by kronckew

...carbon 14 tests are not cheap. in 2012 it cost around £450 (US$ 650) per. might be worth it on the upper end items tho.

Well, firstly, i have seen testing offered for less than that. Also, as with any technology, prices could drop over time as methods are perfected and more people require the service. So i don't necessarily see this as a monetarily restrictive dead end.

[Tim Simmons]

Carbon dating will always cost more than your ivory handle dha is worth unless it is exceptional. All this stuff is what you might call top end which is all a matter of taste really.

[David]

Originally Posted by Tim Simmons

Carbon dating will always cost more than your ivory handle dha is worth unless it is exceptional. All this stuff is what you might call top end which is all a matter of taste really.

In the USA you can find it for as little as $250-$300. I don't know that much about the testing procedure, but it seems possible that since testing ivory to determine a pre-1947 date requires only a single indicator they may be able to make such a test even cheaper. And as i mentioned before if more people are getting the test it may also be possible to do it for a lower cost as there would be a larger testing base to cover equipment costs and set-up. Of course, it would be ideal if the onus of proof were on the authority rather than the collector. If you think my ivory is post-CITES then YOU prove it. One can dream...

[A. G. Maisey]

Please accept my apologies for the length of this post.
If you are more interested in ivory than in social justice and logic, don't read any further.

It seems that once again I am well and truly out of step with everybody else.

When I read through this thread from start to finish the impression I gain is that everybody wants to focus on how unfair it is that the duly constituted authorities enforce the laws and regulations governing the sale of Elephant ivory in ways that are contrary to long established and generally accepted standards of law and justice.

In other words everybody accepts that the laws and regs are themselves just, but that the application and enforcement of these laws are unjust.

Although I acknowledge that this conflict between the just and the unjust enforcement of law is a reality, my attitude to the laws concerned is entirely different to the attitude that others taking part in this discussion seem to possess.

I see this entire matter of the protection of a species, specifically the African Elephant, and to a lesser degree the Indian Elephant, in an entirely different light.

If there is a universally held opinion that there is the risk of these elephants becoming extinct, and that it is essential that action be taken for their preservation, the entire problem comes down to a relatively simple matter:- risk and control.

The objective of all this anti-ivory law is to ensure the continued existence of the elephant.

The risk is that the elephants will cease to exist.

The control must be designed to act against this risk.

There are two types of control:- preventative controls, and detective controls. Preventative controls stop something from happening, detective controls reveal when something has happened.

What we have at the present time, in respect of elephant ivory, is an extremely strong structure of detective controls and an extremely weak structure of preventative controls.

The detective controls are what everybody here has been talking about:- laws governing the detection of elephant ivory, and punishment for breach of those laws. Regrettably, those laws are being abused, indeed, the fact that materials to which the laws do not apply are also being unjustly subjected to the provisions of these laws, amounts to no less than a perversion of justice.

The laws are a control intended to assist in achievement of the objective, which is the preservation of the elephant, but when a control is misused it is weakened, and that is precisely what has happened in this case:- these laws as currently enforced do absolutely nothing to ensure the continued existence of the elephant. Thus, although the structure of the detective controls is strong, the application of those controls has weakened their effectiveness.

The preventative controls that are in place in this matter are extremely weak. They consist of small numbers law enforcement officers who spasmodically control huge areas of elephant habitat. The hope is that these patrols will prevent the unlawful killing of elephants before it happens. If prevention fails, as it often appears to do, at least there is another detective control.

The other element of control that forms a part of the preventative control is the penalty imposed upon those who kill elephants. These penalties are very, very lenient, for example in Kenya as at 2013 the maximum penalty for the most serious of wildlife crimes was a maximum fine that equated to about $US450, or a possible jail term of ten years. I do not know the current penalties.

In the design of control against risk there is a hierarchy applied that governs the strength of control design, put simply, where something must be prevented at all cost the control is as strong as it can be made; where it is not so important that something be prevented, the control can be weaker.

It seems obvious to me that in the case of The Elephants, nobody really cares if they live or die:-
the detective controls have been weakened by a mode of enforcement that is nothing short of perversion of justice
the preventative controls have been weakened by ineffective enforcement and laughable penalties.

If there is an overwhelming desire to ensure the continued existence of the elephant, then we have something that must be prevented from happening, no matter what the cost may be.
In other words the preventative controls must be as strong as possible.

Strong controls are expensive.

The countries where elephants live are not wealthy countries.

It seems obvious to me that the governments of developed countries must not only contribute sufficient funds to allow the application of effective preventative controls, but must also offer personnel with the requisite skills to apprehend suspected elephant killers before they can kill.

Equally, penalties for the killing of elephants must be as Draconian as it is possible to make them. The penalties must deter any prospective elephant killer. I would envisage something along the lines of the death penalty, not only for the killer, but for his entire extended family, and for any person who had any involvement in the killing, both before and after the fact.

If my attitude seems just a little too harsh, then perhaps we should take a long step back and ask exactly what is important to us.

If it is the preservation of The Elephant, then no measures taken to ensure this can be considered to be unreasonable

However, if it is the preservation of a just and well managed society then perhaps we should direct our attention to the people within our societies who would have us humanise animals, strip us of the right to self defence, and disavow the long established principles which have strengthened our societies, principles that enshrine the Family as the basic building block of a strong nation.

These corruptors of our way of life, our societies, and our children are the true enemy here. They are a cancer , destroying our way of life from the inside.

This whole thing is not about ivory, it is about a group of people who want to take everything of true value away from us.

[Bob A]

Loud shout-out form Alan's Amen Corner here!

I've seen the disarming of the public in UK, Australia and parts of USA, and the consequences that follow are not pretty. The same people involved in that are busy building regulatory states, run by unelected administrators against whose judgements there is no recourse.

This has changed the essential nature of Western Civilisation (so-called) to a great degree, and not for the better, in my opinion and that of others whose life experience is long enough to have viewed the change.

Education has faltered, and the collective attention-span of the average person has diminished. It is difficult to become informed of the actual goings-on in the world, as attention is constantly diverted to "shiny objects" of little importance. (By way of example, a young man with whom I work was totally flabbergasted when I showed him a map of the Chinese nine-dash line and explained what was going on).

Meanwhile, hundreds of self-sufficient societies have been brought to the brink of extinction, and the skills needed to survive in a situation where modern communication and electrification might become unavailable for a time are sadly lacking in most developed areas. Much of the West is a week away from chaos under these circumstances, and governments responsible for the welfare of their citizens are heedless and unprepared.

But we can seek out ivory, and tortoiseshell, and save the Spotted Owl, and trade carbon offsets while China burns enough coal to cover California in soot.

Something is wrong, and a few people are beginning to notice. If our systems are robust enough, we might persevere.

The elephant in the room is not the elephant. It's the consequences of corruption, fiscal, mental and moral, at the highest levels.

[kai]

Thanks a lot for your thoughts, Alan!

Just a minor quibble:

Equally, penalties for the killing of elephants must be as Draconian as it is possible to make them. The penalties must deter any prospective elephant killer. I would envisage something along the lines of the death penalty, not only for the killer, but for his entire extended family, and for any person who had any involvement in the killing, both before and after the fact.

If my attitude seems just a little too harsh, then perhaps we should take a long step back and ask exactly what is important to us.

If it is the preservation of The Elephant, then no measures taken to ensure this can be considered to be unreasonable

Here again it is important to establish and continue to monitor which measures really work and which don't. For example, the death penalty has a bad track record to avoid murder - I rather doubt it will work any better in this context (actually, rangers already need to shoot encountered poachers to avoid being killed themselves).

Also keep in mind that poaching nowadays often takes place in the form of raids/operations by militia forces (including forced conscription of kids and teens).

Regards,
Kai

[A. G. Maisey]

Kai, I agree wholeheartedly that the execution of a single killer does nothing at all to halt murder.

However, if the consequences of a risk are sufficiently severe to be avoided at all costs, then the penalties that apply to those who fail to observe the laws intended to prevent occurrence of that risk, must be so severe as to cause not mere disapproval, but horror and extreme fear.

My suggested penalty may not be the most desirable to achieve the required result, but I am certain that sufficiently horrific penalties could be implemented that would not just deter people who were so inclined, from killing elephants, but would cause such people to go into a state of mental collapse at the mere thought of a dead elephant laying at their feet.

Things that come to mind immediately are crucifixion, hang, draw and quarter, that wonderful old Dutch speciality, The Wheel. And applied to whole families, or villages, not just perpetrators.

Penalties just marginally more severe than a fine which equates to the cost a meal in a decent restaurant in a major city of a developed country.

That is of course only one way of looking at the problem.

As I wrote in my earlier post:-

"This whole thing is not about ivory, it is about a group of people who want to take everything of true value away from us."

If the supposed problem is really serious, then we must act in such a way that the risk of the problem becoming reality is forever avoided. This will cost enormous amounts of money, as well as immense human suffering.

However, if what we are looking at is something less than the End of the World, then let us consider what can be done about those people who want to rob us of those things which most of us cherish.

These people are the same ones who have generated this over-reaction to ivory.

[Tim Simmons]

Going on about law and justice is one thing. The main point is you should not vandalize the art. You could say yes it has lost value and yes that might hurt some more than others but do not deface the object. It is still worth something just the market has changed. Perhaps you just have to live with it.

[A. G. Maisey]

I tend to disagree with you Tim.

At the beginning of my previous rather lengthy post I acknowledged that I was out of step with everybody else.

In my opinion this is not about art, nor ivory, its preservation or destruction.

It is about the destruction of core values of western society, and I only mention western society because that society is what most of the people here are members of.

This ivory thing is only a symptom of the illness that is affecting us all, but because the effect is cumulative, it goes unnoticed until some time that it affects something that one of us personally holds dear.

Clearly a lot of people in this discussion group are deeply affected by the attack on ivory, which some see as an attack on art. But the people who have generated this attack on ivory are the same ones who are attacking our very way of life and the core values of our society.

We must recognise this rottenness at the core of our society, identify the those who are eroding our values, and remove or destroy them.

Learn to live with it?

No thank you.

I've read too many history books.

[ALEX]

Robert Shapiro, former O.J. Simpson lawyer, in a recent interview said: "There's two types of justice that we deal with in America: There's moral justice and there's legal justice". Simply put, legal justice is used here to stop the trend and ban the illegal substance. That said, I am with Alan in that it becomes witch hunt that affects innocent and items of historical significance. I hope more thoughtful and senseless controls will form in near future before people get hurt for owning camel bone pens and ivory colored ties.

[Kubur]

I agree but it's not only about moral justice.
It's about society.
These people give moral lessons, they are ecologists, vegetarians and whatever...
They are against fur and they pretend to protect wildlife...
But they are also the same who wear fashonable leather shoes without thinking that leather comes from animal
or they are the same who wear trendy clothes made by little childrens in India or China...
as I said... disgusting...

[Tim Simmons]

What ever just make sure however you deal with it, do not go through people who are vandal. The art must remain whole.

[ariel]

I suspect Alan's suggestion of death penalty for the perpetrators, their families, friends, neighbors, sheep and oxen was tongue in cheek:-)

On a larger scale, what we are witnessing is a pussification of Western societies.
It is incredibly gratifying to protect "weak and miserable", such as whales, elephants, owls and exotic fish. Just as much as granting asylums, vaporizing about genital mutilation, circumcisions, firearms, bladed objects, sugary drinks, carbon prints, halal slaughter of animals and electronic cigarettes.

Interestingly, all these governmental decisions come from people who are not going to be affected by the fruits of their bureaucratic frenzy.

Governments acquired unlimited and unchecked powers. Education of children became a province of ex-hippies of the lunatic left fringe. Future generations will be even more supine, because they were brainwashed from diaper age ( environmentally safe diapers, mind you!) and never ever asked themselves why fascist regimes always put the word "socialist" at the head of their party manifestos.

Our handwringings are impotent. We are going against the tide. Ivory is just a minor symptom, but 1984 is already 30 years old and going stronger.

[estcrh]

Originally Posted by Tim Simmons

Going on about law and justice is one thing. The main point is you should not vandalize the art. You could say yes it has lost value and yes that might hurt some more than others but do not deface the object. It is still worth something just the market has changed. Perhaps you just have to live with it.

Tim, I see a new market opening up for hilt and inlay replacement specialists, they will remove (hopefully undamaged) the offending "ivory" and "horn" and skillfully install new and legal high quality hilt and inlay material, life will go on for those that can afford it.

[estcrh]

Originally Posted by ariel

Our handwringings are impotent. We are going against the tide. Ivory is just a minor symptom, but 1984 is already 30 years old and going stronger.

Arial, just begining to realize that we all in some way have been living in police states, some more disquised than others?