I started a thread in The Lounge about Cowan's picking up some of my guns for their upcoming auction. The guy who was available to come to my house this week was not their gun guy, but is with their fine arts department. He's aware of the "law" and has been in round table discussions with the Feds about it. Bottom line, I felt comfortable in letting them have three of my revolvers with ivory, and should I see a gun that fits into my collection and has ivory I will not hesitate to buy it.

The biggest thing in our favor is that this "law" would affect everybody, from your grandmother to long time legitimate antique dealers. Thus there is a huge backlash and lack of support for it.

John Gross

 

When they decide to take action to enforce the new ban you better hope your items are not in the auction. This happened in California It must have been weeks, if not months in the planning. They closed in quietly and made their move. It was not a special ops team parachuting into Osama Bin Laden’s compound in Pakistan, but a bunch of heavily-armed, intimidating officers from the California Department of Fish & Game storming into the Slawinski Auction Company. They seized 40 lots of antique ivory worth about $150,000 and left everybody shaken and confused. “That night they showed up, they covered the parking lot,” said Bob Slawinski, who runs the company with his son, Rob. “We probably had 20 agents here.

 

This happened in California..

Ahhh....California. You do realize they have different laws than the United States? California Penal Code section 653o makes it illegal “to possess with intent to sell, or to sell within the state, the dead body, or any part or product thereof, of any polar bear, leopard, ocelot, tiger, cheetah, jaguar, sable antelope, wolf (Canis lupus), zebra, whale, cobra, python, sea turtle, colobus monkey, kangaroo, vicuna, sea otter, free-roaming feral horse, dolphin or porpoise (Delphinidae), Spanish lynx, or elephant.”

There are probably exceptions to the law (I did not read the whole thing).

 

Read this thread:
http://www.coltforum.com/forums/lounge/80385-finally-some-good-ivory-news.html

 

The problem is not new and it really comes down to would you rather a pair of ivory grips, tool handle, shoe horn, etc or African elephants because they are getting scarcer by the day. The more ivory that is traded and sold the more dead elephants, and the more dead elephants, the more prices climb for ivory and the likelihood poachers will kill even more of them. I'm willing to buy a set of pearl or stag or something else to not be part of the extinction of such a magnificent animal as the African Elephant. Just not worth it to me.

 

The problem is not new and it really comes down to would you rather a pair of ivory grips, tool handle, shoe horn, etc or African elephants because they are getting scarcer by the day. The more ivory that is traded and sold the more dead elephants, and the more dead elephants, the more prices climb for ivory and the likelihood poachers will kill even more of them. I'm willing to buy a set of pearl or stag or something else to not be part of the extinction of such a magnificent animal as the African Elephant. Just not worth it to me.

I don't think this is true based on my conversations with a few of the grip makers, and reading up on the subject. It's what the liberals want us to believe, but the ivory used for grips in the U.S. now isn't from a fresh kill. Most of the poaching, and illegal ivory trade is going on in China and other countries. This stupid law won't changed a damn thing, and its not saving any endangered animals.

 

I'm all for saving the elephants...but what exactly is the definition of "antique ivory" ?

Furthermore... who benefits from the confiscation of "antique ivory"? And what does Law Enforcement plan to do with it? I presume it'll be destroyed?

 

I have a couple of antique knives in my collection by California makers, that have marine ivory scales on the grips. I always understood this was walrus ivory. I'm not concerned, because the knives are well over 100 years old, as are my guns with ivory. But, I was wondering whether walrus ivory came under this ban? I would assume so, even though I didn't see walrus listed.

 

Didn't they at one time tranquilize elephants and remove their tusks specifically to deter poaching for the ivory? My suggestion would be to do for the elephants what we did for the bison. Plenty of room in Texas to start raising them because that ****hole known as Africa will never get any better. At least here they'd have a chance.

 

Exactly......everything now concerning animal welfare is tainted by political correctness.
Big money is being pulled into liberal coffers from uninformed sentimental millionaires & valleys by promoting useless and sometimes detrimental animal parts restrictions.
Fact is the average legal Elephant hunt brings in over $70,000 to the sponsor country. Big dollars over there and it pays for future conservation efforts.
What a joke banning ROO hides I Calif; in Australia they are hunted & sold for commercial meat.

Sad commentary when they send 20 heavily armed agents to confiscate old teeth at an upscale auction house.
Two regular uniformed officers would have been one to many. Classic example of government full of itself.

 

The information is out there if you're willing to look. And while I don't know all of the ins and outs of the Ivory trade and Elephants it is pretty easy to correlate the ivory trade to elephant deaths. So call it liberal call it whatever you want it is not new and if you really want to know just use your computer and type in threats to elephants. While not all of it is poaching it is quite a large reason why there has been a decline both of African and Indian elephants.


The primary and most devastating threat to both African bush & African forest elephants is that of poaching which is done especially for the sake of ivory. Ivory is used for making different articles of immense beauty and value; therefore, the hunters kill them to obtain this precious part of their body. Particularly owing to global warming, the rapidly changing atmosphere is creating some problems for the survival of these already dwindling organisms.

 

The information is out there if you're willing to look. And while I don't know all of the ins and outs of the Ivory trade and Elephants it is pretty easy to correlate the ivory trade to elephant deaths. So call it liberal call it whatever you want it is not new and if you really want to know just use your computer and type in threats to elephants. While not all of it is poaching it is quite a large reason why there has been a decline both of African and Indian elephants.


The primary and most devastating threat to both African bush & African forest elephants is that of poaching which is done especially for the sake of ivory. Ivory is used for making different articles of immense beauty and value; therefore, the hunters kill them to obtain this precious part of their body. Particularly owing to global warming, the rapidly changing atmosphere is creating some problems for the survival of these already dwindling organisms.

Nonsense. Use you computer and type in, "whatever you want", and you will find anything you want to believe. Doesn't make it fact. Just like Global warming is the cause of evrything bad happening in the world. More nonsense.

 

I have a son who is quite liberal and is about to receive his PhD in Science, Technology, Engineering and Math (STEM) Education. That means he will be teaching future teachers what and how to teach. When I asked him about Global Warming, he immediately pulled out data showing that over the past few decades, the amount of carbon dioxide in the World's atmosphere has doubled. When I looked at the units related to the 'doubling', they were in parts per million. He then showed me data on global temperature changes over the same period and they fluctuated all over the graph, but he said, "The trend is obvious" that we are seeing a slight increase over that period. I think his estimate was about 0.6 degrees F or as I told him 0.3 degrees Centigrade. That irritated him since he knows that scientists are supposed to use the metric system, but he was using the English system to make the supposed change appear greater than it is.
When I asked him what experiments have these so-called Environmental Scientists done to prove that this very, very minor increase in CO2 is directly related to this very, very minor change in temperature, he could not give me an example of such an experiment.
I then showed him a report from a NASA satellite study that showed that CO2 was not blocking reflected sunlight creating a so-called "Greenhouse Effect" nearly as much as Environmental Scientists had Projected or Felt.
We agreed to disagree.
Liberal/Progressives have their own way of looking at things and they certainly are different from my way. As far as I am concerned "They make up facts."

 

"They make up facts."

A truer statement hasn't been said.

I get a kick out of these people. When it's hot-global warming. Cold-global warming. Too much rain, too little rain, too much snow, too little snow, record hot spell, record cold spell, more hurricanes, fewer hurricanes, wind out of the north, wind out of the south, no matter what the earths natural cycle or weather pattern happens to be, their answer is always "man-made global warming". :bang_wall:

Remember last winter when a bunch of global warming "scientists" attempted to get to Antarctica to measure the massive amounts of icecap that had been lost? They didn't even get close to their goal, as the ice has increased substantially. They got their ship stuck in the ice for what? 2 weeks? A month? something like that. 2 or 3 icebreakers couldn't even get through. I had hoped that they would have to resort to cannibalism before rescue was made. Irony...

 

Sadly, academia is the heart of liberalism (being just down the road 40 miles or so from U of M and occasionally working on campus, it is quite obvious, to me at least). On makung up facts, it is essentially the same mindset as anti-gunners. Argue from emotion instead of logic and fact, and adjust "fact" as needed to support their version of "the truth".

 

Chaffee, Well stated! These Environmentalists tend to find one particular place on this Earth where ice is melting and they extrapolate that finding to the entire planet. As you pointed out, while ice is melting somewhere on Earth, generally it is growing somewhere else. These people are not scientists, they are political activists. As soon as you point out a fact that shows them wrong, they spin the conversation into another direction or simply call you a derogatory name and walk away.
This whole Ivory Ban deal is based on 'made up' data.

 

Look what is happening to this country right now due to this mentality! So sad I weep for my children and grandchildren's future!

 

Back to the Ivory ban, let's hope that the legislation that is being proposed by 'saner heads' will draw a lot of support. Of course, that support can get stronger if everyone writes to their Congressman and Senators and ask them to support this legislation.

 

I would think that ban would result in a lot of pianos with stripped bare keys or none at all. Be wary of that old cabinet grand you picked up from grandmas house or at a yard sale(most keys are plastic, but you never know right?).

 

Many old chests and cabinets have ivory around the place where the key inserts. I sure hope we are able to get some relief from this unfair Executive Action.

 

Interesting reading.

What is a Climate Conservative? | Climate ConservativeClimate Conservative

"...while great American conservatives like Theodore Roosevelt, Russell Kirk and President Reagan embraced conservation and environmental stewardship, too many of today’s self-proclaimed “conservatives” are actually “live-for-today” libertarians who have largely abandoned these values, and who reflexively oppose any policy that limits pollution or encourages resource conservation."

"When it comes to how conservatives view climate change, Al Gore has been the 500- pound donkey in the room. Many conservatives are skeptical of climate change simply because Gore made it his pet issue. Conservatives should not give Gore, Obama, or any other liberal that kind of power over their thinking.

If Gore decides to champion the cleanup of a river that is clearly polluted, his advocacy does not make the river any more or less polluted, nor does it have any bearing on the merits of cleaning up the river. In the 1980s Gore sounded the alarm about ozone depletion, but it was President Reagan who pushed through the international treaty that actually did something about it."

Time for real leadership on climate change, energy, national security | Fox News

 

I don't know any of those "conservatives". The conservatives I know base their opinions only on facts not in an emotional response or reflexive opposition of a libtard like Gore. That is a liberal trait, to act out emotionally in the absence of fact or when proven wrong. That article was written by a libtard or RHINO wanna be libtard.

 

Well, bear in mind that one of the two articles I posted came from Fox News. There are lots of people on both sides of the political spectrum who, unfortunately, respond emotionally. People have become so polarized that they don't care about the facts, because as long as the facts are coming from the opposite side, they automatically assume they're wrong or just plain lies. That is incredibly unfortunate and dangerous.

I don't think anyone would disagree with the fact that mankind generates a lot of pollution annually - in the air and the oceans. I think we do have a great responsibility to be good stewards of the environment, whether it's for the purpose of addressing "man-made climate change" or for the purpose of just being responsible citizens.

 

It is the duty of all governments to look after the well being of their citizens. In the USA, the Industrial Revolution created jobs and a better life for most US people. At the same time, we polluted the environment in doing this. Over the past 50 years, the governments, industries and citizens of the US have made great progress in cleaning up a lot of the messes we made while creating wealth for the country and its people.
To day, we see this same process occurring in countries like China where the standard of living is quite poor for most of its people. The same thing is happening in India and in many other countries. With time and proper efforts by people of these other countries, I hope they will also start to 'clean up their messes.'
The main thing to understand is that 'getting started' making life better for a country's people will most likely cause environmental damage. Hopefully, most of this can be reversed.
My major concern these days is that the US is doing a good job in cleaning up our environment, but activists are pushing us to possibly shut down coal-fired electrical generation plants at a time when our national electrical grid is barely able to produce the power we need in very hot and in very cold seasons.
Governments need to be prudent in how they approach any 'bans' whether they be on pollution, ivory, coal mining, etc. Today most of these bans and restrictions seem to be politically motivated.

 

It is the duty of all governments to look after the well being of their citizens. In the USA, the Industrial Revolution created jobs and a better life for most US people. At the same time, we polluted the environment in doing this. Over the past 50 years, the governments, industries and citizens of the US have made great progress in cleaning up a lot of the messes we made while creating wealth for the country and its people.
To day, we see this same process occurring in countries like China where the standard of living is quite poor for most of its people. The same thing is happening in India and in many other countries. With time and proper efforts by people of these other countries, I hope they will also start to 'clean up their messes.'
The main thing to understand is that 'getting started' making life better for a country's people will most likely cause environmental damage. Hopefully, most of this can be reversed.
My major concern these days is that the US is doing a good job in cleaning up our environment, but activists are pushing us to possibly shut down coal-fired electrical generation plants at a time when our national electrical grid is barely able to produce the power we need in very hot and in very cold seasons.
Governments need to be prudent in how they approach any 'bans' whether they be on pollution, ivory, coal mining, etc. Today most of these bans and restrictions seem to be politically motivated.

Terry, I agree with you that governments should be prudent when it comes to regulation. They need to strike a fair balance between economic development, job creation and energy needs in the short term and long-term effects on the environment, etc. But I do believe there has been enough written on the subject of climate change over the years by a great number of scientists (who certainly can't all be liberals), to where the issue shouldn't merely be written off as a bunch of liberal nonsense. There is a big difference between saying there is climate change caused by pollution, but we need to proceed cautiously with regulation, versus discounting the issue as a bunch of BS. Tim

 

I just like the fact that Tim has been liked exactly 1234....1 -2 -3 -4 times., as i write this. I will be quiet and get back to work now.

 

Tim, I respect your concern about Global Warming. I hope your knowledge about the quality of research that has been done in this area is better than mine. I personally know researchers who have worked the area.
I consider Global Warming as a Science to be on the same level as Political Science.

 

Terry, the important thing is that you respect opinions, even if you have reason to disagree. Tim

 

Before Guy shuts us down, let me restate that I do not deny that issues like Global Warming; Ozone Holes; etc. are valid things to be studied. My objection is that these studies are not being handled in a true scientific manner, in my opinion as a practicing research scientist with over forty years of experience.
I repeat that it is being handled and funded with a political bias.

 

Climate change is undeniable - it happens - remember studying about the Ice Age?
What is being reported as undeniable - that climate change is man-made - is BS. Unproven and the facts don't support it.

 

Tanzania officials in Dallas say lifting ivory import ban would actually help elephants | Dallas Morning News

This link shows that African countries don't agree with our ban and lobby us to lift it. I agree.

 

Tanzania officials in Dallas say lifting ivory import ban would actually help elephants | Dallas Morning News

This link shows that African countries don't agree with our ban and lobby us to lift it. I agree.

lemmy, Welcome to the Forum!
There are definitely many sides to this Ivory Ban argument. Thanks for posting this position.
If one is raised only hearing one position on any subject, that becomes their belief. It is always good for intelligent people to listen to all sides of an arguments/discussion and ultimately make up their own minds based on what they feel is most logical.

 

Read an interesting article in the latest SCI publication. Apparently Botswana is nearing catastrophe with elephants. Not due to poaching or hunting (no longer legal) but habitat destruction due to over-population. Over course, the leftists and environ-mentalists will never concede that conservation and game management works, even though it certainly has over the last 100yrs, because their feelings are so hurt over the animals' plight. They're just too emotional to do anybody any good.