E-Bay bans all ivory sales!

[Atlantia]

Originally Posted by A. G. Maisey

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.

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.

[A. G. Maisey]

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.

[A. G. Maisey]

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.

[fearn]

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

[A. G. Maisey]

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?

[fearn]

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

[A. G. Maisey]

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.

[VANDOO]

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 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 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.!!