E-Bay bans all ivory sales!

[asomotif]

But we might be facing environmental activists scouring e-bay listings ( including "white bone" and spelling curlicues) and filing official complaints, and those listings will be taken off.

Personally I have made several complaints about new ''artifacts" that were offered as antique and were made of CITES endangered species.
Not 1 single listing was removed, and I also never received an answer from ebay.
I even once asked a question to CITES about there policy towards ebay and never recieved a supply.
Protecting animals probabaly has a lot to do with politics.

As for ebay banning ivory, politics again. Maybe something to do with stock holders. I am quite sure that selling ivory netsuke from China combined with the (also not allowed) high shippingcharges will continue. with or without ban.

Lets take our own responsibillity and try to avoid buying new ivory objects.
And yes, i am only human and might be tempted, but lets do our best

[Tim Simmons]

Great pictures. It is an old thing many suppressed and confident "military by numbers" people encouraged martial training through dance. Here it is completely neutralised. They had fun, possibly to many drinks.

[A. G. Maisey]

The world does not begin and end with ebay.

So what if they ban ivory sales?

Ivory sales have been banned in so many places for so long that this is just another minor annoyance--- and not just ivory sales, in some places and some instances, possession of ivory.

Prior to the CITES restrictions on ivory sales, specifically during the 1970's, ivory keris hilts could be bought in Indonesia for around the same price as wooden keris hilts, price of either depended on quality of workmanship and age, not so much on the material.

Guess what has happened to the price of ivory since the very wise CITES bans came into force?

Yeah, that's right:- same thing as happened to the price of alcohol during prohibition.

Want to push prices up?

BAN IT!!!

As for the protection of elephants, well, anyone notice beef cattle dying out?

Nope.

Why?

Because beef cattle have a use.

Since the ivory bans what has happened with poaching of ivory?

Do elephants have any use at all, except to make some of us---me included---feel good?

I'm all in favour of ensuring that elephants do not die out. I like elephants. Big, impressive, almost human in some respects---not that that is necessarily a recommendation---but yeah, elephants are good guys. Lets make sure they don't all get killed.

But this new age ratbag approach of the tree huggers and kangaroo cuddlers of banning the trade in ivory is simply not defensible in the long term on any logical or rational basis.

[Atlantia]

Originally Posted by A. G. Maisey

The world does not begin and end with ebay.

So what if they ban ivory sales?

Ivory sales have been banned in so many places for so long that this is just another minor annoyance--- and not just ivory sales, in some places and some instances, possession of ivory.

Prior to the CITES restrictions on ivory sales, specifically during the 1970's, ivory keris hilts could be bought in Indonesia for around the same price as wooden keris hilts, price of either depended on quality of workmanship and age, not so much on the material.

Guess what has happened to the price of ivory since the very wise CITES bans came into force?

Yeah, that's right:- same thing as happened to the price of alcohol during prohibition.

Want to push prices up?

BAN IT!!!

As for the protection of elephants, well, anyone notice beef cattle dying out?

Nope.

Why?

Because beef cattle have a use.

Since the ivory bans what has happened with poaching of ivory?

Do elephants have any use at all, except to make some of us---me included---feel good?

I'm all in favour of ensuring that elephants do not die out. I like elephants. Big, impressive, almost human in some respects---not that that is necessarily a recommendation---but yeah, elephants are good guys. Lets make sure they don't all get killed.

But this new age ratbag approach of the tree huggers and kangaroo cuddlers of banning the trade in ivory is simply not defensible in the long term on any logical or rational basis.

The banning of Ivory already HAS made a huge difference to the numbers of elephant stocks. In many countries where the ban has been for the most part successfully enforced, Elephant populations have boomed in recent years.
But there is still a market for ivory, especially in the faked/reproduction antiques trade, and it IS growing.
That should be a huge concern to every one of us for several reasons.

A significant (perhaps the main) market for illegally poached Ivory is China, and a significant market for the products produced from that illegally poached ivory are internet auction sites selling to western collectors.
If you could tell me 'hand on heart' that every piece of Ivory on eBay that is described as a 'genuine antique' or that comes with a piece of paper from a dealer stating it is 'pre ban' really IS legal, then there would be no problem.
But you know that is not the case.

Of course eBays decision willl not end the trade.
Just as the existing ban hasn't done so over the last 25 years.
But to draw the conclusion that such bans are not worth the effort because they are not 100% effective is simply ridiculous. They are a continuing fight, and if ebay feel that they cannot effectively differentiate between legal and illegal Ivory on their site, then they are doing the right thing by banning it all.

As has been said, I find it hard to believe that they will effectively enforce this new rule, but amongst their furball of mystifying decisions and 'thou shalt not' rules, this is generally a good one.

I think Ivory is a beautiful material, I love antiques and recognise and understand (albeit with some sadness) the use of endangered animal parts in antique items of extreme cultural significance and historic importance.
But despite this fact, there simply can be no comparison between the need for conservation of entire species and the needs of a handful of collectors.
We are not talking about a ban on ownership of genuine antiques, or their enforced destruction, just a measure being introduced to continue to combat a continuing destructive trade stemming from what is an indefensible practice.

Yes genuine collectors of real antiques will suffer a little. But the significance of every piece of ivory in every manmade antique from the Chryselephantine statues of the classical world to Steinway pianos and every piece of netsuke inbetween is absolutely NIL compared to the survival of an entire species.


I respect your right to disagree with this ban, and from your comments it seems you may even disagree with ANY ban on the sale of ivory?
But of all the angles that you could have chosen for objection, your argument that 'bans' dont do any good is simply wrong and your rather personal comments about those who support conservation: 'ratbag approach of the tree huggers and kangaroo cuddlers' is frankly offensive to me.

I sincerely hope those were hasty words on your part.

Reagrds
Gene

[ariel]

A.J. Maisey,
Completely agree!

[CourseEight]

Originally Posted by A. G. Maisey

Guess what has happened to the price of ivory since the very wise CITES bans came into force?

Yeah, that's right:- same thing as happened to the price of alcohol during prohibition.

Want to push prices up?

BAN IT!!!

As for the protection of elephants, well, anyone notice beef cattle dying out?

Nope.

Why?

Because beef cattle have a use.

Since the ivory bans what has happened with poaching of ivory?

My $0.02:

This argument would seem to imply that the ban of ivory has in some way created additional incentive to kill elephants, and that if we treated elephants the same way we did cattle, we could have our elephants and *ahem* kill them too. Quite simply, if the market existed for this to be true, it would have been done. The fact is that ivory is not a necessity, and so has a much smaller market to sell too than food like beef. Further, the lack of domestication combined with the enormity of these animals would make it fiscally untenable to do so. Which is why animals such as these were hunted to near extinction in the first place: they are profitable enough to hunt, but not to farm. As for the cost increase in banned items, well, of course the cost increases, since the risk associated with the aquisition is greater. But the reason these bans work is that there is a much smaller percentage of people willing to take the larger risk associated with illegal activity.

There are reserves in Africa, I'm told, where the elephant population has grown to the point where it actually has to be controlled through hunting. The time may come when other elephant populations will be in a similar situation, and at that time these bans can be lifted (under strict hunting supervision). But the notion that the free market will somehow save the elephants on its own, or that elephants aren't worth saving if the market doesn't save them, simply doesn't hold water with me.

[Spunjer]

just like clockwork:

threads like this becomes politically charged, lol.


i think that we should just stick to the topic at hand...

thank you

[TVV]

I also do not think Ariel's intent with this thread was to start a debate over the effectiveness of the eBay ban in the fight to save endangered species. I think he just wanted to let us know that starting January 1st, 2009, ivory hilted items will be harder to obtain and more expensive. The last part was pointed out in a very hard to dispute manner by Alan, actually.
Besides, we can argue our points of view in this thread forever, but I doubt anyone here will do anything to fight the ban. We may circumvent it by buying ivory (and rhino horn) hilted weapons from sellers, who disguise it, but since we (I hope, and I know for myself personally) are after genuine antiques, this would in no way threaten the existing elephant (or rhino) population.
As it was pointed out, at the end of the day it comes down to personal ethics and responsibility, and I for one have confidence in the members of this forum that we will continue to do the right thing, just like we have been doing it so far. For myself, I do not feel the intent of the ban was to stop me from bying ivory hilted yataghans that are a century and a half old, and therefore I really am not too concerned about the new rule.

[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.

[asomotif]

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.

Hear hear ! (even though Elephant mostly live in savannah's)

[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.