Destroying artwork

Battara · 17th May 2016, 03:28 PM

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

David · 17th May 2016, 07:04 PM

Quote:

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 · 17th May 2016, 07:11 PM

Quote:

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 · 17th May 2016, 07:17 PM

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 · 17th May 2016, 07:26 PM

Quote:

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 · 17th May 2016, 08:26 PM

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 · 17th May 2016, 09:46 PM

Quote:

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 · 18th May 2016, 12:53 AM

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.

17th May 2016, 03:28 PM	#1
Battara EAAF Staff Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Louisville, KY Posts: 7,310	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

17th May 2016, 07:17 PM	#4
Bob A Member Join Date: Feb 2014 Posts: 439	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.

17th May 2016, 08:26 PM	#6
Tim Simmons Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: What is still UK Posts: 5,875	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.

18th May 2016, 12:53 AM	#8
A. G. Maisey Member Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 7,048	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.