The Issue of Ivory

A. G. Maisey · 9th October 2017, 12:26 AM

You may well be right Tim.

However, ivory has been a part of the Human Experience for tens of thousands of years. I rather feel that an appreciation of ivory is locked firmly into the sub-conscious of many people, and that this inherited attitude crosses the boundaries of culture and society.

Can a momentary change in societal attitudes affect the heritage of the Human Experience?

Personally, I doubt that it can.

There may be a hiatus in the use and appreciation of ivory, a hiatus that will surely come to an end.

When the pendulum swings too far one way, it has nowhere to go except to swing back again, and eventually it comes to rest in the centre.

As this applies to ivory, perhaps during the Colonial Era there was an over-use of ivory, perhaps this overuse continued past the time when it could be supported, the result was that the pendulum swung too far into the range of use. Now we have the probably predictable reaction of well intentioned people, and the pendulum is on the verge of swinging too far into the range of non-use. Eventually that pendulum will commence to swing back to the range of use, and after an even longer period of time it will come to rest within the range of acceptable use.

All things pass, including the idiocy of well intentioned but badly misguided Tree Huggers.

In the meantime, opportunities are being presented for those who are prepared to ignore regulation to increase their wealth.

Total bans do nothing but encourage criminal activity.

Adequate control and management is a better option.

mariusgmioc · 9th October 2017, 07:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by A. G. Maisey

Total bans do nothing but encourage criminal activity.

Yes David, you are right! Got taken away by the wave!

David · 9th October 2017, 07:21 PM

Gentlemen, while i do appreciate that this is a trigger subject for all of us who have antique ivory somewhere in our collections and that we all need a moment to vent from time to time on such subjects i would really like to keep any discussion on this subject focussed solely upon it's relationship to keris collecting and completely devoid of political comments or opinions. Thanks!

David · 9th October 2017, 09:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mariusgmioc

Yes David, you are right! Got taken away by the wave!

Thanks for your understanding Marius. As we have discussed in the background amongst the moderators, the problem here is that for the most part this IS a political issue, yet i believe it can be discussed based upon facts and logic without digressing into partisan politics or name-calling. I realize the difficulty though. Thanks again!

drac2k · 9th October 2017, 11:43 PM

When the "Night Watch," or the "Danae," by Rembrandt were slashed with razors, the perpetrators were said to be mad.When the Taliban destroyed
6th-century Buddist statues, they were said to be backward, vandals, and Medieval; so what do we call it when our Governments carry out such acts?
What we are discussing is the destruction of art and history, which I dare say transcends politics.
The sad part of this ban on ivory is that as the governments get more aggressive in seizing the ivory, Rhinos and Elephants are being killed faster than they are being born by the poachers who are realizing higher prices for their ghoulish work; supply and demand.

A. G. Maisey · 10th October 2017, 02:16 AM

Precisely.

Add to this the fact that there are more and more humans who need land that is also needed by elephants.

Sorry, but the jumbos just gotta go --- or the humans.

Guess who wins.

The problem is that most humans have the desire that elephants will continue to exist in the wild.

This is a many faceted problem, and any many faceted problem requires a suite of appropriate responses in order to ensure the possibility of solution.

This begins with determination of an objective, followed by identification of risks that can interfere with realisation of the objective, and the institution of a management plan that provides the tools to address the risks and then makes use of those tools.

But what do we get?

A knee jerk reaction.

In accordance with David's request, I will not make the appropriate political or anti-social comment at this point:- you all know what that comment is in any case, so I do not need to to make it.

Green · 10th October 2017, 02:55 AM

may be a stupid question this, but is it difficult to farm elephants?... it may sound ridiculous, but what's the difference from cattle farming?

may be in this way we can satisfy our addiction to ivory.

A. G. Maisey · 10th October 2017, 05:17 AM

We came to agreement between ourselves that if the true objective of the anti-ivory clan was to ensure the survival of elephants, then the way to achieve that was to give the elephant a commercial value, in other words either farm it, or provide some sort of open range farm where the elephants could live wild until such time as they were ready to be harvested and their commercial worth realised.

But the problem with this idea was also recognised, and that is that elephants are big animals that need a lot of room, and they need land that is also needed by people. Regrettably elephants and people seem to be unable to co-exist within the same area of land.

So the problem perhaps is not the killing of elephants for ivory, but rather the killing of elephants to enable elephant habitat to be successfully used by humans. The ivory is sometimes no more than a by-product of the need for human living space.

If elephants in the wild are to be preserved, then the people who want to preserve them are going to have to pay in order to do so, and since they are big animals, that means paying big amounts of money.

Do they really think they can achieve anything at all with a ban that costs virtually nothing?

So, if it is going to cost money to preserve wild elephants, and make no mistake, eventually it will, why not make the elephant pay for his own preservation? In other words give him a commercial value.

9th October 2017, 12:26 AM	#1
A. G. Maisey Member Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 7,085	You may well be right Tim. However, ivory has been a part of the Human Experience for tens of thousands of years. I rather feel that an appreciation of ivory is locked firmly into the sub-conscious of many people, and that this inherited attitude crosses the boundaries of culture and society. Can a momentary change in societal attitudes affect the heritage of the Human Experience? Personally, I doubt that it can. There may be a hiatus in the use and appreciation of ivory, a hiatus that will surely come to an end. When the pendulum swings too far one way, it has nowhere to go except to swing back again, and eventually it comes to rest in the centre. As this applies to ivory, perhaps during the Colonial Era there was an over-use of ivory, perhaps this overuse continued past the time when it could be supported, the result was that the pendulum swung too far into the range of use. Now we have the probably predictable reaction of well intentioned people, and the pendulum is on the verge of swinging too far into the range of non-use. Eventually that pendulum will commence to swing back to the range of use, and after an even longer period of time it will come to rest within the range of acceptable use. All things pass, including the idiocy of well intentioned but badly misguided Tree Huggers. In the meantime, opportunities are being presented for those who are prepared to ignore regulation to increase their wealth. Total bans do nothing but encourage criminal activity. Adequate control and management is a better option.

9th October 2017, 07:21 PM	#3
David Keris forum moderator Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: Nova Scotia Posts: 7,250	Gentlemen, while i do appreciate that this is a trigger subject for all of us who have antique ivory somewhere in our collections and that we all need a moment to vent from time to time on such subjects i would really like to keep any discussion on this subject focussed solely upon it's relationship to keris collecting and completely devoid of political comments or opinions. Thanks!

9th October 2017, 11:43 PM	#5
drac2k Member Join Date: Jun 2013 Posts: 1,294	When the "Night Watch," or the "Danae," by Rembrandt were slashed with razors, the perpetrators were said to be mad.When the Taliban destroyed 6th-century Buddist statues, they were said to be backward, vandals, and Medieval; so what do we call it when our Governments carry out such acts? What we are discussing is the destruction of art and history, which I dare say transcends politics. The sad part of this ban on ivory is that as the governments get more aggressive in seizing the ivory, Rhinos and Elephants are being killed faster than they are being born by the poachers who are realizing higher prices for their ghoulish work; supply and demand.

10th October 2017, 02:16 AM	#6
A. G. Maisey Member Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 7,085	Precisely. Add to this the fact that there are more and more humans who need land that is also needed by elephants. Sorry, but the jumbos just gotta go --- or the humans. Guess who wins. The problem is that most humans have the desire that elephants will continue to exist in the wild. This is a many faceted problem, and any many faceted problem requires a suite of appropriate responses in order to ensure the possibility of solution. This begins with determination of an objective, followed by identification of risks that can interfere with realisation of the objective, and the institution of a management plan that provides the tools to address the risks and then makes use of those tools. But what do we get? A knee jerk reaction. In accordance with David's request, I will not make the appropriate political or anti-social comment at this point:- you all know what that comment is in any case, so I do not need to to make it.

10th October 2017, 02:55 AM	#7
Green Member Join Date: Apr 2015 Location: Malaysia Posts: 325	may be a stupid question this, but is it difficult to farm elephants?... it may sound ridiculous, but what's the difference from cattle farming? may be in this way we can satisfy our addiction to ivory.

10th October 2017, 05:17 AM	#8
A. G. Maisey Member Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 7,085	We came to agreement between ourselves that if the true objective of the anti-ivory clan was to ensure the survival of elephants, then the way to achieve that was to give the elephant a commercial value, in other words either farm it, or provide some sort of open range farm where the elephants could live wild until such time as they were ready to be harvested and their commercial worth realised. But the problem with this idea was also recognised, and that is that elephants are big animals that need a lot of room, and they need land that is also needed by people. Regrettably elephants and people seem to be unable to co-exist within the same area of land. So the problem perhaps is not the killing of elephants for ivory, but rather the killing of elephants to enable elephant habitat to be successfully used by humans. The ivory is sometimes no more than a by-product of the need for human living space. If elephants in the wild are to be preserved, then the people who want to preserve them are going to have to pay in order to do so, and since they are big animals, that means paying big amounts of money. Do they really think they can achieve anything at all with a ban that costs virtually nothing? So, if it is going to cost money to preserve wild elephants, and make no mistake, eventually it will, why not make the elephant pay for his own preservation? In other words give him a commercial value.