New Jersey Ivory ban....

[A. G. Maisey]

As Tim has commented in post #15, the objective of impending universal bans could be an attempt to alter public perception. However, if we consider the history of the effect of total bans upon the price and desirability of any commodity there seems to be a consistent predictable effect, and that is that when something is banned it becomes more desirable and the price rises accordingly.

An example:- during the 1970's and 1980's I regularly bought keris hilts in Jawa and Bali. At that time a wooden hilt of fine workmanship was always more expensive than an ivory hilt of ordinary quality. Ivory hilts only became more expensive when the workmanship was of a high quality. Following the introduction of ivory bans the prices of ivory hilts skyrocketed. No matter what the quality, if it was ivory, it cost more, a lot more, than even the finest work in any other material.

Examine history and we find that this is the effect of prohibition.

Where a price does not fall because of prohibition the causes can be linked to changing style, for example tiger skins. Forty and more years ago it was very fashionable to decorate one's house with parts of dead animals, mounted heads, skins as scatter rugs, elephant foot umbrella stands. It is no longer fashionable to have one's house looking like a natural history museum, thus the prices of these objects have fallen, in fact it is now often not possible to give this sort of thing away ( I speak from experience).

In a country like Australia, where I live, it is very probable that the ivory bans will bite. As in much of the rest of the developed world, Australians in general have a herd-like mentality and for the most part act in ways that our leaders want them to act. However, it can be expected that demand for all things, not only ivory, will increase in China in at least a compensating proportion to decrease in our developed countries. Total bans on ivory in developed countries will have no effect on desire or ability to purchase in China, and in some other developing countries. The elephants will continue to die.

By profession I am an auditor and risk consultant. In my profession we understand that it is not possible to protect absolutely against the occurrence of something that we do not want to occur. There is no control that cannot be circumvented.

If we do not want elephants to disappear, the risk of their disappearance must be managed, and total bans on trade in, or possession of, the desirable parts of an elephant's body will only increase desirability of those parts.

The answer to protection of elephants is to manage them as a resource. Give them a dollar value and regulate the trade, not ban it.

Regrettably politicians listen to voters and voters listen to half-baked green coloured idiots.

[spiral]

I agree with many of your observations A.G.

But other factors can also play a factor perhaps?

... Tiger skins are still worth a lot of money & are fashionable in the middle & far east, but not in the UK etc.. There still poached in India etc.

Elephants & rhino have had a dollar value for a long time, just, big game hunters, terrorists, vets , safari organisers, local military, anyone who wants some money for the cost of a couple of rounds or some poison can scupper the long term value for instant satisfaction.

As for prohibition always increasing value ... that's not always true.

When Persia collapsed the UK was flooded with high purity, very low cost heroin, because it was the easiest way to bring ones wealth out of a collapsing country.

Supply & demand help set the value & quite simply the bartering between salesmen & wealthy customers finally decides what the market will bare.

We see this in the antique arms world as well.

spiral

[A. G. Maisey]

Spiral, to address all factors involved in this matter would require extensive research and a very long and comprehensive paper. My brief contribution to this discussion is based upon generalities and current risk management practice.

Certainly, we can always argue non-conforming specific cases, and when we talk "dollar value" & "resource" definitions should ideally be given. In short, my comment is very easy to argue with and it would be an interesting exercise to engage in an ongoing debate and see just how long we could keep it going.

But I'm not going to do that. I've stated my concise opinion, and you and all others have stated, and will continue to state theirs.

The thing that I think most of us agree upon is that a total ban will accomplish nothing except the achievement of political objectives, and financial loss for those unable to find a way around the bans. One thing is for sure:- in its present form it will not protect elephants.

Supply & demand are certainly major factors in fixing the value of anything, as demonstrated very clearly by the example I provided of the rise in the price of ivory following the introduction of the early bans. As bans become wider and more intensive, it is probable that supply may decrease, which will of course raise price and desirability, but then what can we expect to happen? If history is any guide, supply will increase to fill the market gap.

Summary execution for possession of any ivory object might have some effect, most especially if such a punishment were to be introduced by China and some other developing countries. But that is not likely to happen.

Personally I think that the people who want to help the poor old jumbos would do well to have a close look at the way in which De Beers manages diamond supply.

[spiral]

Certainly A.G. it is a complex subject with many variables. I am sure it would be an interesting debate!

The last time a huge tonnage of African ivory was released a few years ago with cities permission, elephant poaching roared astronomically, after all a receipt saying ivory was legal, could be used again & again , as after all there is no DNA taken to match the legal document to the ivory.

I am sure De Beers, do many naughty things, many powerful international company's do.

Sadly that wont change.

I guess the fact ivory & particularly rhino horn are a long way from an infinite supply, will have its effect as well.

As you say without harsh punishment of consumers {& I would add poachers, particularly the wealthy organised ones with helicopters etc.. & the armed militia types. & not just some hungry bloke with an old .303 who makes an easy scapegoat.} the demand will remain.

Interestingly, the countries that burn there ivory publicly in huge public piles, don't say where that ivory disappears to afterwards, when they show a photo of a pile of ashes.

After all ivory may crack a bit but it doesn't burn on an open fire, that's just the logs in the pile & a splash of accelerant....

I would like the Elephant & rhino populations to recover from where they are today.... But I don't believe in destroying antiques. That wont help anyone or anything. Its vandalism.

As for Trade bans in the west... I guess at least one can keep what ones already got.

Will any of it really work? probably not...

spiral

[Sajen]

Destroying antiques in old collections would in my eyes the same what the Taliban has done in Afgahnistan with the Buddha statues from Bamiyan in 2001 and don't will help to save elephants or rhinos. Like Spiral said it's pure vandalism.

[Lee]

I have always despised laws and regulations that overreach whatever legitimate aims they have in an effort to facilitate easy, ignorant enforcement. The assault on genuine, legitimate antiques is despicable, as are the politicians who promulgate same. I find the arguments that such overreach will protect a single endangered wild animal entirely specious. I welcome well conceived and competently written laws and regulations that would protect these animals without such gratuitous overreach. I expect that these present laws and regulations will come under judicial scrutiny in the US in due course, as where they exceed legitimate aims they surely have ventured into the territory of illegal seizure.

[spiral]

Indeed Sajen pure vandalism.

I don't know enough about the US legal system to comment Lee, but from what you say this may be overturned?

If so your justice system works better than the UK... {not that that's difficult...}

I still rather think such laws will become the norm in the more advanced world. europe, US Oz etc. in time.

A law that targets current professional criminals & is properly enforced would be a better approach than turning every collector into a criminal if he passes on a genuine antique.

But I guess it easy to catch non professional or accidental criminals & pretend something efficient & meaningful is going on, to the electorate.

spiral

[estcrh]

Originally Posted by Lee

I expect that these present laws and regulations will come under judicial scrutiny in the US in due course, as where they exceed legitimate aims they surely have ventured into the territory of illegal seizure.

Lee, as soon as a wealthy collector with influence of some kind realizes that his or her collection is in danger of being labeled as illegal / unsellable etc we will see exceptions make for antiques which contain ivory, I have no doubt.