Destroying artwork

[Sylektis]

Not only warriors of ISIS destroy artwork. U.S.A. laws (about ivory) do the same. Look in what condition Bonhams auctioned weapons aged 200 and more years, from the Richard Wagner collection.
You can compare from their original state in the book "Oliver S. Pinchot, Arms of the Paladins, the Richard R. Wagner Jr. Collection"

[Sylektis]

Some more.

[Sylektis]

The end.

[estcrh]

Horrific destruction for no reason.

[Ren Ren]

Vandalism.

[Kubur]

It's disgusting.
But I don't understand, if the ivory is more than one hundred year old, they cant do that...

[Lee]

Senseless, gratuitous vandalism that will save no animals but which does stand as a monument to arrogant, incompetent, lazy regulation and lawmaking done from a 'politically correct' mindset.

[Richard G]

A couple of points:-

Bonham's should be ashamed of themselves for having anything to do with it.

I wonder where the ivory is now?

And do you know, you can still import ivory into the USA providing you have shot the elephant yourself!

[Sylektis]

A couple of points:-

Bonham's should be ashamed of themselves for having anything to do with it.

I wonder where the ivory is now?

And do you know, you can still import ivory into the USA providing you have shot the elephant yourself!
My friend Eutyxis showed me this:
https://www.antiquestradegazette.com/news/2016/uk-dealers-told-to-destroy-ivory-antiques-in-us/
:mad:

[Sajen]

Horrible!!! :mad: :mad:

[Norman McCormick]

Straightforward Common Sense and Political Correctness appear to be as mutually exclusive in the U.S.A. as they are here in Europe.
Regards,
Norman.

[estcrh]

It's disgusting.
But I don't understand, if the ivory is more than one hundred year old, they cant do that...In the U.S. it is much more complicated, it is virtually impossible to prove how old the ivory is under the current system, they have decided to ignore the rights of people who have purchased or otherwise own antique items containing ivory when it comes to reselling these items. Now people resort to calling it "bone" and not selling items with ivory openly, this is a real problem here and it will only get worse.

[corrado26]

these pictures demonstrate urgently the grandiose stupiditiy of men at its best!!
corrado26

[ariel]

What can we do with our own ivory-, walrus- and rhino - handled swords and daggers?
Is it safe to buy such items from foreign countries to be shipped here?
What about shipping outside the U.S. ? Within the US?

These stories open a huge can of poisonous worms for antique dealers and weapon collectors.

[Rick]

What can we do with our own ivory-, walrus- and rhino - handled swords and daggers?
Is it safe to buy such items from foreign countries to be shipped here?
What about shipping outside the U.S. ? Within the US?

These stories open a huge can of poisonous worms for antique dealers and weapon collectors.

And you probably never dreamed that your own country could or would mark you as a criminal.......neither did I.

Oh well off to the Fun store for more ammo for the AR.

[Tim Simmons]

It is truly ghastly to see such vandalism even if done with good intention. Destroying ivory to kill the market, prestige concept of the material is probably only happening in " western " countries. Where I think there is little demand for new ivory. This is hitting the wrong people. However I can understand the the no if,s and buts view.

[kronckew]

political correctness at it's work again.

i lost a few old ivory netsuke i bought in japan a couple decades back. US customs just took them.

this thread's destruction is like defacing the mona lisa to avoid offending someone.

[Lee]

This article (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/doug-bandow/obama-administration-trea_b_4848867.html) covers some of the implications. I expect that these regulations will ultimately face court challenge as it is a seizure of the value of a person's property without adequate justification.

Obviously I do not at all believe the demonization of antique ivory is going to save any wildlife. Indeed Kenya's recent mass ivory burn was just stupid. Sell it though legal channels to where there is demand for big money and use the proceeds to combat the poachers.

[Rick]

This article (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/doug-bandow/obama-administration-trea_b_4848867.html) covers some of the implications. I expect that these regulations will ultimately face court challenge as it is a seizure of the value of a person's property without adequate justification.

Obviously I do not at all believe the demonization of antique ivory is going to save any wildlife. Indeed Kenya's recent mass ivory burn was just stupid. Sell it though legal channels to where there is demand for big money and use the proceeds to combat the poachers.

Oh, that would be too damn easy Lee.
How the hell do we always manage to wind up with people running the show that do things like this?

[kronckew]

... Sell it though legal channels to where there is demand for big money and use the proceeds to combat the poachers.

sell it at a low bargain price that makes it uneconomical for poachers to carry on...

[asomotif]

this thread's destruction is like defacing the mona lisa to avoid offending someone.

Her right wrist is still very naked.

[Norman McCormick]

How the hell do we always manage to wind up with people running the show that do things like this?


Anyone who wants to make politics their career should automatically be barred from doing so!!!

[kai]

sell it at a low bargain price that makes it uneconomical for poachers to carry on...
That doesn't work, especially when stupid "pseudo-pharmaceutic" demand exceeds remaining wildlife as evident with rhino. I hear that even despite being regarded as useless from a TCM point of view, antique horn gets stripped from cultural artifacts for resale to dumb "customers" which is just as criminal for the preservation of mankind's cultural heritage.

This is a terribly difficult subject and I do understand those with good and certainly laudable intentions who want to save rhinos, elephants, tigers, and other wildlife in jeopardy. Given the extreme losses we have been witnessing during the last decades, I could live with fairly drastic measures - if they really work and also take into account that antique cultural artifacts are a heritage of mankind that also desperately needs to be preserved from extinction, i. e. destruction.

Regards,
Kai

[Robert]

The immeasurable stupidity as well as the blind following of the new 'politically correct" doctrine that lead to this is far more dangerous than just what is shown here. Unless something is done that will change this kind of thinking I am afraid of what might come next. Can you imagine if this were to become the norm what our museums might look like in the future? Not just the removal of offencive objects, ivory, edged weapons, but possibly the wanton removal and destruction of these items as well as anything else that might be deemed offencive in the eyes of the politically correct. The removal of the ivory on the items originally being discussed is not only the senseless destruction of objects of art, but of history itself.

[kronckew]

removed by me to 'not offend'.

[Rick]

Anyone who wants to make politics their career should automatically be barred from doing so!!!

We need a vaccine for this disease.

[A. G. Maisey]

Rick, that vaccine is called :- REVOLUTION.

It works by destruction of the offending elements of the whole.

These elements can be identified by their inability to act in a way that is in harmony with basic human rights.

STORY

Several months ago the man who is arguably the foremost authority on the artistic aspects of the Javanese keris, and who almost single-handedly was responsible for the re-birth of the keris in Jawa asked me if I would accept a gift from him.

Anything you get for nothing must be good. Of course I said I'd be more than happy to accept his gift.

The gift duly arrived.

It was a number of very good ivory hilts.

I rang him and thanked him profusely, and asked why he had given them to me.

"Well Alan, I live in America, and I am very fearful that if it becomes known to the wrong people that I possess some ivory objects, my home will be invaded, the objects will be destroyed and I and my wife will be prosecuted. "

The Land of the Free and the Home of the Brave.

[Rick]

Driven by:
http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2012/10/ivory/christy-text
How sad. :(

[rickystl]

He said he was going to "transform" America. :(

[David]

Well, these examples shown here are a terrible shame and i do believe that something most definitely needs to be done to both protect these precious and beautiful antiques as well as the lives of elephants and other ivory bearing animals that exist in this world. This issue is very complex, but i certainly cannot see how the destruction of antique ivory can save the elephant from extinction.
That said, i do fear that we are being a bit too fearful of our own private collections. These laws are, for the most part, governing commerce. I do not see that the U.S. government is going to march into any museums anytime soon and destroy the vast collections of antique ivory artifacts that can be found there. Bonham auctioned these weapons which is how they fell prey to this ridiculous law that affects antique ivory as well as new. Despite the fears of the American collector who sent his ivory hilts to Alan for fear of confiscation, i have serious doubts that private collections are in danger...at this moment. I do think the collectors in all fields that do come in contact with antique ivory need to band together, sooner rather than later, to petition for a more just reading of current laws to ensure that antique ivory is not problematic for authorities in the future.
I would also prefer that this thread stay both civil and non-political to avoid a disastrous result in the end. ;) :)

[estcrh]

Well, these examples shown here are a terrible shame and i do believe that something most definitely needs to be done to both protect these precious and beautiful antiques as well as the lives of elephants and other ivory bearing animals that exist in this world. This issue is very complex, but i certainly cannot see how the destruction of antique ivory can save the elephant from extinction.
That said, i do fear that we are being a bit too fearful of our own private collections. These laws are, for the most part, governing commerce. I do not see that the U.S. government is going to march into any museums anytime soon and destroy the vast collections of antique ivory artifacts that can be found there. Bonham auctioned these weapons which is how they fell prey to this ridiculous law that affects antique ivory as well as new. I despite the fears of the American collector who sent his ivory hilts to Alan for fear of confiscation, i have serious doubts that private collections are in danger...at this moment. I do think the collectors in all fields that do come in contact with antique ivory need to band together, sooner rather than later, to petition for a more just reading of current laws to ensure that antique ivory is not problematic for authorities in the future.
I would also prefer that this thread stay both civil and non-political to avoid a disastrous result in the end. ;) :)
What you own is not a problem, it is when you try to sell it that you may have a problem.

[ariel]

Which at some stage we, or our heirs, will do.

But buying from overseas dealers is getting dicier with each passing day.

[kai]

Could anyone please give a summary of the current regulations in the US and its states?

I know these go beyond the established international CITES measures (including practically banning import/export connected with any commercial transaction IIRC) but just haven't kept track...

How about the status of the judicial challenge in California and possibly other states?

Thanks a lot!

Regards,
Kai

[kai]

Hello Sylektis,

Thanks lot lot for bringing this case to our attention - not being my focus of interest I completely missed that these pieces got crippled and cultural heritage of mankind lost (and apparently destroyed)!

It seems these examples were from the Bonhams auction on May 11th, 2016, at London. I really would like to know how this happened - did you contact Bonhams before the auction?

Regards,
Kai

[estcrh]

What can we do with our own ivory-, walrus- and rhino - handled swords and daggers?
Is it safe to buy such items from foreign countries to be shipped here?
What about shipping outside the U.S. ? Within the US?

These stories open a huge can of poisonous worms for antique dealers and weapon collectors.Ariel, I have personally passed on buying these items only recently. Luckily I only have a few items with ivory, and remember that ivory can come from several sources. There will certainly be a black market for antique weapons with ivory hilts, inlay etc. If you can not openly and accurately describe the hilt material and inlay on your weapons how do you sell the without worrying about the buyer coming back on you someday if they eventually have a problem.

Hopefully some very rich and powerful collector has to deal with this problem, that may be the only way we will ever get any help.

[A. G. Maisey]

David, the gentleman who gave me his ivory hilts cannot be thought of as a collector. Yes, he does have some small collections of various artifacts, but essentially he is a consultant in S.E.Asian art, his principal clients are museums and governmental bodies. He consults to museums, curates their exhibitions and writes accompanying material.

He has no faith at all that ivory artifacts held by museums in the U.S.A. will remain untouched in the long term. This is the reason he needed to find a safe place for his ivory hilts, he needed to move outside the reach of governmental bodies in the U.S.A.

[Tim Simmons]

Looking at the situation another way. You have to ask why did the auction house carry on with the sale? You could see them as equal in the mindless vandalism. There motivation was money with obvious disregard for what is artwork. Had I been the manager I would have refused to take the objects in. There may be a black market for some very fine works but for most ivory pieces , who really wants to spend large sums of money on something you will loose on. Antique values can go up and down just like other investments. You can pass them on or swap them. If I was weathy enough to have pieces of the quality shown here I would donate them to a museum or university or give to a friend on my demise.
.

[VANDOO]

THE ONES WITH THE JOB OF MAKING NEW CITES REGULATIONS AND LAWS DON'T CARE IF LAWS ACHIEVE THEIR GOALS OR ARE GOOD OR BAD. THEY JUST NEED TO KEEP CRANKING OUT NEW ONES TO KEEP THEIR JOBS SO THERE CAN NEVER BE ENOUGH REGULATIONS OR LAWS FROM THEIR POINT OF VIEW. THOSE HIRED TO ENFORCE THESE LAWS ARE HIRED TO MAKE NO DISTINCTION BUT ONLY TO CONFISCATE , DESTROY, FINE OR PROSECUTE ACCORDING TO THE BOOK. SO FOSSIL OR ANTIQUE , CULTURAL OR MASTERPIECE MEANS NOTHING TO THEM IF ITS ON THE LIST THE LAW MUST BE ENFORCED. THE ZOOS WHICH HAVE ALWAYS BEEN A HAVEN FOR THE BREEDING OF ENDANGERED SPECIES ARE ALSO UNDER ATTACK TO FREE WILLY EVEN IF WILLIE CAN NOT SURVIVE IN THE WILD AND LOVES THE ONLY LIFE HE EVER HAS KNOWN. MUSEUMS ARE NOT SAFE FROM THEM EITHER. HUMANS ARE NOT THE MOST INTELLIGENT SPECIES BUT THE MOST MIXED UP. :(

[Tim Simmons]

If not exported could the ivory, if not damaged, be given free to the buyer to reattach??

[Robert]

Tim, are asking about the ivory taken from the items this post is originally about? If you are, once our government gets its hands on something you have a better chance of capturing bigfoot than you do of ever getting it back from them. :(

[Green]

i have removed mine as Mr kronckew is gentlemanly enough to remove his.

My apology for being rather abrasive .

All is fine now mr Kronckew.

[kronckew]

i have removed the anecdotes in the post #25 & here as they offended you.

[estcrh]

We should not be going here, it will just cause problems.

[kronckew]

they did! the west should admit and not forget these travesties either. and don't forget the holocaust! we cannot learn from the mistakes if we are not aware of them.

the destruction of these antique ivory items is a cultural disaster for all cultures, and as in the past we are not acknowledging, based on the beliefs of the destroyers that they are doing good and following the beliefs they were taught. they need to be taught better tho.

[estcrh]

they did! the west should admit and not forget these travesties either. we cannot learn from the mistakes if we are not aware of them.This discussion is about the current horrible situation which many dealers and collectors now find themselves in, they have invested untold amounts of money on items that were completely legal and suddenly, without any thought of compensation, they are told that their items are now virtually worthless and that they may in fact be considered as criminals if they were to try and sell their formerly legally obtained items.

[estcrh]

i have removed the anecdotes in the post #25 as they offended you.You should remove the remarks from post #42 as well, they are just as if not more offensive.

[kronckew]

You should remove the remarks from post #42 as well, they are just as if not more offensive.
i done, how about yours & green's?

mods: please remove our 'offensive' posts, my intent was not to offend. unfortunately just like bonham's, i appear to have gone overboard. when one is digging themselves into a hole, it's best to stop digging.

[Gavin Nugent]

Disregard


Gavin

[Lee]

I really would like to know how this happenedAs would I, as it is premature to make directed criticisms without such details. Some of the defaced lots still sold at a good price relative to the estimates, though I lack knowledge of what the value was prior to to defacement.

Also, I would like to remind members offended by the remarks of other members that the appropriate action is to report the thread and your concerns to a moderator, not to launch a criticism or rebuttal within the thread.

[kai]

Hello Gavin,

Thus far, this appears to be a US Bonhams issue only as Bonhams in the UK and elsewhere do still auction ivory, here is one such example.
FWIW, in the US, they also continue to auction this (no link to keep with forum policies).

I *suspect* that this is/was not an issue of the auction house (they were fairly upfront with their reference to Oliver's book).

It seems more likely that this happened during transit (from the US to the UK?) or, less likely, with the consignee (also note that the affected items were delayed and not included in the main Wagner auction).

Regards,
Kai

[Tim Simmons]

I do not like the ban but for me the more I think about it. The responsibility for the vandalism falls with the auction house and the person putting the items up for auction. Leaving ideas of monetary values aside both have failed in their duty of care and guardianship of the art. I ask if they were ever seen as art or investment.

[Pukka Bundook]

I have no answers, all I can do is shake my head.
To me it is unbelievable that such art -work could be destroyed.
This is incompetence at the highest level, and an action should be brought against the auction house before this becomes the norm.
(Or is it Already the norm??)

Unbelievable.

[David]

I would also prefer that this thread stay both civil and non-political to avoid a disastrous result in the end. ;) :)
It's nice to see how well you all are capable of following my advise from post #30. :(
Frankly i am not particularly in favor of having to slash and burn entire parts of threads because some members are incapable of taking a moment to consider the impact of their words BEFORE they hit the "submit reply" button. Please stick to the issue at hand and leave religion and politics out of your responses. And maybe we should take a closer look at the ACTUAL LAWS as they stand today to avoid some of the panic and hyperbole i see brewing here. These laws govern COMMERCE of ivory, not ownership. As they currently stand they do not sanction the raiding of either museums or private collections. That is not to say that even as they stand these laws aren't problematic. Banning the sale of pre-CITES ivory, and certainly antique ivory, should be taken off the books. Gaining certification for such antique ivory should be made a simple and affordable process. Destruction of these pieces is a despicable act. But as the laws exist today they do NOT empower the U.S. government to raid your home to confiscate your private collection (though if you are dealing in these items a raid could take place that does not distinguish between your sales stock and your personal items). I absolutely agree that collectors should be able to sell off their collections and understand that for many collecting these objects is an investment as well as a passion. That is the aspects of these laws that must be addressed by a unified force of antique collectors. Are there any known petitions on this issue currently circulating? Is anybody doing any kind of organizing around this issue? Because i am pretty sure that collectors just sitting around complaining to each other on internet forums will not change anything at all. The case must be compiled calmly and intelligently with a well thought out process mapping alternatives and examples and presented though proper channels to authorities that might be open to a review of these laws.
If by now collectors are still unaware, here are the rules as they currently exist. Certain aspects of these rules remain unfortunately vague in places:
http://www.fws.gov/international/travel-and-trade/ivory-ban-questions-and-answers.html
As a general practice i do not buy any weapon with ivory dress parts that must come through customs. Currently the risk is far too great and that's a pair of ivory dice i refuse to roll.

[Tim Simmons]

People that want ivory dressed weapons must set up their own regional online exchange and private sales sites. Not cross borders or using auction houses.

What is so dumb of the case here, is why a private sale was not sought in the first place, which is why the auction house and seller have been unbelievably stupid and possibly appallingly greedy.

[Bob A]

. . . the aspects of these laws that must be addressed by a unified force of antique collectors. Are there any known petitions on this issue currently circulating? Is anybody doing any kind of organizing around this issue? Because i am pretty sure that collectors just sitting around complaining to each other on internet forums will not change anything at all. The case must be compiled calmly and intelligently with a well thought out process mapping alternatives and examples and presented though proper channels to authorities that might be open to a review of these laws.

Collectors sitting around complaining may provide the impetus for further, organised action. I hold little hope that the legal nightmares which spring from the CITES treaty can be easily remedied by going through "proper channels" - it is these selfsame channels that developed the "solution" to the problem, at the behest of emotionally overwrought "activists".

The only effective way to remove such obstacles is by generating a similar appeal to the emotions, which can be harnessed to produce a counterforce response.

The relevant question I see here is, will this site provide a node of contact for concerned collectors and curators to attempt some sort of pushback, or will this be denied as unwelcome political speech?

[Sylektis]

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/feb/06/france-destroys-illegal-ivory-poaching
"Philippe Martin the minister for ecology, durable development and energy, added that all ivory seized in France in future would be destroyed, apart from samples kept for scientific or educational purposes and those items that might help trace traffickers."

[David]

The relevant question I see here is, will this site provide a node of contact for concerned collectors and curators to attempt some sort of pushback, or will this be denied as unwelcome political speech?
Bob, organizing collectors to create an appropriate the pushback that can addresses this issue in the right places was not the kind of political speech i was concerned about. ;)

[David]

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/feb/06/france-destroys-illegal-ivory-poaching
"Philippe Martin the minister for ecology, durable development and energy, added that all ivory seized in France in future would be destroyed, apart from samples kept for scientific or educational purposes and those items that might help trace traffickers."
It looks like the vast majority of what is being destroyed in this article is recently poached raw ivory with a few statues and such made from it, not antiques that hold a cultural, anthropological or archeological value beyond the materials. I believe as collectors it is the latter we should place our attention on with the intent of creating exceptions to the laws in the case of pre-CITES or antique ivory. I seems it would be a losing battle to try to sway these authorities from this kind of destruction of obviously poached ivory and frankly i don't have a issue with that per se. It is the culturally valuable antiques that i don't want to see destroyed and i believe we have a logical and supportable case to be made for the protection of such specimens from destruction.

[VANDOO]

THERE SEEMS TO HAVE BEEN NO PROVISION FOR OR CONSIDERATION GIVEN TO REGISTERING PRE- BAN IVORY ITEMS TO MAKE THEM LEGAL AND EXEMPT FROM DESTRUCTION. THIS SHOULD BE A EASY AND INEXPENSIVE PROCESS BUT SELDOM IS AND OFTEN IS A FORM OF PUNISHMENT FOR HAVING SUCH BANNED ITEMS AND IS NO GUARANTEE THAT THE ITEMS WILL NOT BE CONFISCATED TO MAKE AN EXAMPLE. THERE ARE ALREADY PLENTY OF CITES LAWS ON THE BOOKS ALLOWING THE RAIDING AND CONFISCATION OF VARIOUS ITEMS FROM PERSONAL COLLECTIONS AND BUSINESSES THAT CAN BE APPLIED. THESE LAWS ARE NOT DESIGNED TO DEAL FAIRLY WITH THE CITIZEN WHO IS CONSIDERED THE ENEMY BUT TO PUNISH AND MAKE AN EXAMPLE WHEN EVER POSSIBLE.
IT DOESN'T MAKE ANY SENSE TO ME AS NO ELEPHANTS ARE SAVED THRU SUCH ACTS AND ART IS OFTEN DESTROYED. COLLECTORS AND DEALERS MAY LOSE MILLIONS ON ANTIQUES WHICH SHOULD BE LEGAL. MILLIONS OF DOLLARS OF A RARE RESOURCE ARE DESTROYED THAT COULD HAVE BEEN USED TO COMBAT POACHING WHILE ASKING FOR DONATIONS TO FIGHT POACHING AND SAVE THE ELEPHANTS. IT IS LIKELY THE MONEY USED TO FUND THE ORGANIZATIONS WILL EXCEED THAT ACTUALLY USED TO SAVE ELEPHANTS HABITAT OR FROM POACHING.
I TIE UP MY MONEY AND TAKE CARE OF THE THINGS I LIKE AND COLLECT FOR YEARS AND HOPE TO RECOUP MY MONEY BY SELLING THEM TO SOMEONE WHO WILL DO THE SAME AT SOME TIME IN MY LIFE. FOR SUCH A COLLECTION TO LOSE ALL ITS VALUE AND TO DENY ANY POSSIBILITY OF PRESERVING AND PASSING IT ON DUE TO GOVERNMENT REGULATION IS EVIL. ITS ONLY LOGICAL TO DO THINGS THIS WAY IF IT IS INTENDED TO BE EVIL.

[Bob A]

The first step would seem to be to inquire if there are other groups involved in re-working the restrictions on antique ivory. (Musicians come to mind, as I understand the bits of old ivory on such items as violin bows have created difficulties for professional orchestras considering international travel).

If anyone is aware of such activity, this might be a good place to post information, as we marshal our forces toward some sort of reasonable solution.

I think VANDOO's idea of creating some sort of registry, while cumbersome and intrusive in the extreme, might work as an interim concept.

[A. G. Maisey]

In many countries across the board firearms registration is required. This sometimes becomes ridiculous to the point of idiocy, for instance, in NSW, Australia, it is required to register and possess a licence to use, a child's BB gun.

History demonstrates that frequently registration of those things not favoured by ruling entities is a precursor to seizure.

The problem is that this business of ivory seizure is only a symptom of the overall changes in societal values, values that many of us, myself included, have a great deal of difficulty in accepting as either desirable or legitimate.

The fact that these societal changes have been accepted by an overwhelming percentage of the populace in countries that subscribe to the current form of Western Democracy has only been made possible by social engineering.

It is not possible to reason with fanatics. These anti-ivory beings are not logical people, they subscribe to a system of belief that in many of its aspects is immoral, rotten, and undermines the very fabric of a just and moderate society.

Certainly it is always best to try to win any conflict without actually getting involved in a fight, but when one is dealing with people who live in accordance with a belief system that in many of its philosophies parallels a religious belief, one must question if it is possible to defeat these beings without drawing a little blood? (figuratively speaking, of course)

For those who are directly affected by these obnoxious imitations of humanity and the edicts that they have generated, perhaps the writings of Sun Tzu may be of use.

[estcrh]

Basically, if you live in the US, your ivory hilted and inlaid weapons are not legal to sell or transport, you would have to get a permit which in most cases would be impossible from what I am reading. Anyone have a different opinion. Soon European countries may inact the same or similar total bans, then what?

http://www.fws.gov/international/travel-and-trade/ivory-ban-questions-and-answers.html#27

http://www.fws.gov/policy/do210A1.pdf

https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2015-07-29/pdf/2015-18487.pdf

[Bob A]

The Association of Applied Paleontological Sciences has a website that seems to track individual state laws regarding ivory. The definition of what comprises "ivory" has been expanded to an otherwise ridiculous extent (if it were not for its state of origin) in California.

http://www.aaps-journal.org/Fossil-Ivory-Legislation.html

Governments have gotten way out of hand.

The firearms restrictions mentioned by Alan are in effect to some degree even in firearm-friendly USA, notably in CA, NY, NJ, MA and MD, which states are noteworthy in their crusade against ivory ownership. Elsewhere, as forces of PC activism have managed to roil the waters regarding police maintenance of social order, restrictions have been eased by a remarkable extent, as the populace acts to take up arms while it is still possible to do so. This gives me hope that the pendulum is swinging back toward a more rational worldview overall. It may take a generation or so to do so, of course.

Meanwhile, hold your politically incorrect antique artifacts closely, transfer them by inheritance, which is currently about the only legal course, and locate all those receipts which you kept since the 1970s.

It may be too early to contemplate the maxims of Sun Tzu, but it seems that only those of us of a certain advanced age recall the relative freedoms which we enjoyed in our youth. It may be that we will be called upon to attempt their reinstatement.

[estcrh]

Meanwhile, hold your politically incorrect antique artifacts closely, transfer them by inheritance, which is currently about the only legal course, and locate all those receipts which you kept since the 1970s.


Bob, inheritance does not give the current owner any rights as far as I can see until you do some further proving of the inherited item....there is no excape except for a few determined individuals who just happen to have the rare proof needed to be granted an exemption.

[Rick]

"What're you in for?"
"Inheriting a 200 year old Ivory handled sword." :rolleyes:

[estcrh]

"What're you in for?"
"Inheriting a 200 year old Ivory handled sword." :rolleyes:They are all "bone" hilted swords and daggers as of now!!!

[ariel]

What about walrus ivory?
Rhino?

[estcrh]

What about walrus ivory?
Rhino?Ariel, very problematic, rhino is now "horn" and walrus is bone, I have also seen several sellers lately that somehow forgot to mention the hilt material at all on items they were selling. I think if not sold soon we may eventually have almost no way of selling these items and will just have to keep them as momentos. I just went through what I owned and found several suspect items I forgot about, not sure what to do now.

[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

[Roland_M]

Greed meet Vandalism.
No respect for nothing except money.
Poor and hollowly modern world.

[Bob A]

What about walrus ivory?
Rhino?

The trend is for the various individual states to ban all forms of ivory, to keep it simple. (See link above).

[Rick]

Antiques incorporating ivory no longer cross the auction block in MA.

[David]

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/environment/ivory-age-test-is-key-to-trade-ban-1-1363787
Obviously there should be no problem at all determining the legitimacy of fossilized ivory. :shrug: ;)

[kronckew]

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/environment/ivory-age-test-is-key-to-trade-ban-1-1363787
Obviously there should be no problem at all determining the legitimacy of fossilized ivory. :shrug: ;)

...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]

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]

...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]

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]

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]

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.

[Bob A]

Loud shout-out form Alan's Amen Corner here!

I've seen the disarming of the public in UK, Australia and parts of USA, and the consequences that follow are not pretty. The same people involved in that are busy building regulatory states, run by unelected administrators against whose judgements there is no recourse.

This has changed the essential nature of Western Civilisation (so-called) to a great degree, and not for the better, in my opinion and that of others whose life experience is long enough to have viewed the change.

Education has faltered, and the collective attention-span of the average person has diminished. It is difficult to become informed of the actual goings-on in the world, as attention is constantly diverted to "shiny objects" of little importance. (By way of example, a young man with whom I work was totally flabbergasted when I showed him a map of the Chinese nine-dash line and explained what was going on).

Meanwhile, hundreds of self-sufficient societies have been brought to the brink of extinction, and the skills needed to survive in a situation where modern communication and electrification might become unavailable for a time are sadly lacking in most developed areas. Much of the West is a week away from chaos under these circumstances, and governments responsible for the welfare of their citizens are heedless and unprepared.

But we can seek out ivory, and tortoiseshell, and save the Spotted Owl, and trade carbon offsets while China burns enough coal to cover California in soot.

Something is wrong, and a few people are beginning to notice. If our systems are robust enough, we might persevere.

The elephant in the room is not the elephant. It's the consequences of corruption, fiscal, mental and moral, at the highest levels.

[kai]

Thanks a lot for your thoughts, Alan!

Just a minor quibble:
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
Here again it is important to establish and continue to monitor which measures really work and which don't. For example, the death penalty has a bad track record to avoid murder - I rather doubt it will work any better in this context (actually, rangers already need to shoot encountered poachers to avoid being killed themselves).

Also keep in mind that poaching nowadays often takes place in the form of raids/operations by militia forces (including forced conscription of kids and teens).

Regards,
Kai

[A. G. Maisey]

Kai, I agree wholeheartedly that the execution of a single killer does nothing at all to halt murder.

However, if the consequences of a risk are sufficiently severe to be avoided at all costs, then the penalties that apply to those who fail to observe the laws intended to prevent occurrence of that risk, must be so severe as to cause not mere disapproval, but horror and extreme fear.

My suggested penalty may not be the most desirable to achieve the required result, but I am certain that sufficiently horrific penalties could be implemented that would not just deter people who were so inclined, from killing elephants, but would cause such people to go into a state of mental collapse at the mere thought of a dead elephant laying at their feet.

Things that come to mind immediately are crucifixion, hang, draw and quarter, that wonderful old Dutch speciality, The Wheel. And applied to whole families, or villages, not just perpetrators.

Penalties just marginally more severe than a fine which equates to the cost a meal in a decent restaurant in a major city of a developed country.

That is of course only one way of looking at the problem.

As I wrote in my earlier post:-

"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."

If the supposed problem is really serious, then we must act in such a way that the risk of the problem becoming reality is forever avoided. This will cost enormous amounts of money, as well as immense human suffering.

However, if what we are looking at is something less than the End of the World, then let us consider what can be done about those people who want to rob us of those things which most of us cherish.

These people are the same ones who have generated this over-reaction to ivory.

[Tim Simmons]

Going on about law and justice is one thing. The main point is you should not vandalize the art. You could say yes it has lost value and yes that might hurt some more than others but do not deface the object. It is still worth something just the market has changed. Perhaps you just have to live with it.

[A. G. Maisey]

I tend to disagree with you Tim.

At the beginning of my previous rather lengthy post I acknowledged that I was out of step with everybody else.

In my opinion this is not about art, nor ivory, its preservation or destruction.

It is about the destruction of core values of western society, and I only mention western society because that society is what most of the people here are members of.

This ivory thing is only a symptom of the illness that is affecting us all, but because the effect is cumulative, it goes unnoticed until some time that it affects something that one of us personally holds dear.

Clearly a lot of people in this discussion group are deeply affected by the attack on ivory, which some see as an attack on art. But the people who have generated this attack on ivory are the same ones who are attacking our very way of life and the core values of our society.

We must recognise this rottenness at the core of our society, identify the those who are eroding our values, and remove or destroy them.

Learn to live with it?

No thank you.

I've read too many history books.

[ALEX]

Robert Shapiro, former O.J. Simpson lawyer, in a recent interview said: "There's two types of justice that we deal with in America: There's moral justice and there's legal justice". Simply put, legal justice is used here to stop the trend and ban the illegal substance. That said, I am with Alan in that it becomes witch hunt that affects innocent and items of historical significance. I hope more thoughtful and senseless controls will form in near future before people get hurt for owning camel bone pens and ivory colored ties.

[Kubur]

I agree but it's not only about moral justice.
It's about society.
These people give moral lessons, they are ecologists, vegetarians and whatever...
They are against fur and they pretend to protect wildlife...
But they are also the same who wear fashonable leather shoes without thinking that leather comes from animal
or they are the same who wear trendy clothes made by little childrens in India or China...
as I said... disgusting...

[Tim Simmons]

What ever :shrug: just make sure however you deal with it, do not go through people who are vandal. The art must remain whole.

[ariel]

I suspect Alan's suggestion of death penalty for the perpetrators, their families, friends, neighbors, sheep and oxen was tongue in cheek:-)

On a larger scale, what we are witnessing is a pussification of Western societies.
It is incredibly gratifying to protect "weak and miserable", such as whales, elephants, owls and exotic fish. Just as much as granting asylums, vaporizing about genital mutilation, circumcisions, firearms, bladed objects, sugary drinks, carbon prints, halal slaughter of animals and electronic cigarettes.

Interestingly, all these governmental decisions come from people who are not going to be affected by the fruits of their bureaucratic frenzy.

Governments acquired unlimited and unchecked powers. Education of children became a province of ex-hippies of the lunatic left fringe. Future generations will be even more supine, because they were brainwashed from diaper age ( environmentally safe diapers, mind you!) and never ever asked themselves why fascist regimes always put the word "socialist" at the head of their party manifestos.

Our handwringings are impotent. We are going against the tide. Ivory is just a minor symptom, but 1984 is already 30 years old and going stronger.

[estcrh]

Going on about law and justice is one thing. The main point is you should not vandalize the art. You could say yes it has lost value and yes that might hurt some more than others but do not deface the object. It is still worth something just the market has changed. Perhaps you just have to live with it.Tim, I see a new market opening up for hilt and inlay replacement specialists, they will remove (hopefully undamaged) the offending "ivory" and "horn" and skillfully install new and legal high quality hilt and inlay material, life will go on for those that can afford it.

[estcrh]

Our handwringings are impotent. We are going against the tide. Ivory is just a minor symptom, but 1984 is already 30 years old and going stronger.
Arial, just begining to realize that we all in some way have been living in police states, some more disquised than others?

[estcrh]

We must recognise this rottenness at the core of our society, identify the those who are eroding our values, and remove or destroy them.

Learn to live with it?

No thank you.

I've read too many history books.Change the things you can not accept and accept the things you can not change......knowing which situation you are in is the hard part.

[drac2k]

The banning of ivory by the government has less to do with the saving of the elephant, but more to do with them exerting their control over people, without the " just consent of the governed."
The ivory question will allow them to obtain search warrants to enter your house, and if you have a gun, or more than one(because who would collect more than one), even though they may be pre-1898, seize them.It might be legal to own them, and with due process and thousands of dollars spent, you may even get them back and yourself out of jail before you are bankrupt !
Do not think that the government enforcers will be happy to stop at ivory ;horn handles are next, as well as bone weapons.Heaven forbid that in the raid, they find a Paleo point thousands of years old, that some tribe that has been on the land less than 300 years, claims.
The EPA and the IRS are two examples of government regulatory bodies that have never been accused of restraint and as such I see no reason to trust any government regulatory agency making a determination between old and new ivory.
Maybe governments should concentrate on saving the lives of their people and improving their quality of life with the same enthusiasm as that of endangered animals ; maybe start with something like the homicide rate in Chicago !

[A. G. Maisey]

Ariel, I suspect you might be the only person who read what what I have written a really understood what I was saying.

Your post has touched on the roots of the illness, and it is an illness, that is destroying the very fabric of who we are.

As for "pussification", I love that word. It is Shakespearean in its thrust. It has been duly noted and is now a part of my vocabulary.

I was not so much tongue in cheek as I was using an example of, let us say: "overkill" , to demonstrate that extreme misuse of power can flow to both poles. Abuse of power in one direction almost invariably leads to counter abuse in the other direction and thus is the author of its own demise.

[ariel]

Alan,
There is a Talmudic statement that he who is merciful to the cruel will inevitably end up being cruel to the merciful.

As to " pussification", please feel free to recommend its inclusion into the OED. I insist on being credited:-)))

Estcrh,

I have known it for years. Depressingly, I see more and more how correct I was.....

Leviathans used to protect us from abuse. Now they are chocking us by their hugs.

[David]

As to " pussification", please feel free to recommend its inclusion into the OED. I insist on being credited:-)))
Nice to hear you are taking credit for this vulgar term Ariel, but AFAIK George Carlin used the word in one of his routines about a decade ago.
I will now be accused as being overly PC in my approach, but i would surely hate to see anyone, Alan included, considering this a useful or admirable word to add to one's vocabulary. I have been raised to have nothing but the greatest respect for womankind. If you cannot see how this word is derived from the use of the word "pussy" as a derogative that refers to the female genitalia and is applied as an insult to men who are perceived to be acting "weak like a woman" then you have not been paying much attention to the etymology of slang. Those who believe women the weaker sex might want to try childbirth sometime. ;) I do realize that we are a bit of a boys club here, but i personally find the use of this word in this manner to be quite offensive. Since we are (mostly) men here i would ask that we conduct ourselves like gentlemen in this space. Perhaps try acting as if your mother, sister and wife are in the room listening. :)

[ariel]

David,
I always thought this word referred to a "little kitten":-)

[kronckew]

:) men do have a rough equivalent to childbirth, bladder/kidney stones, supposedly almost as painful. operative word 'almost'. how true i do not know as i have not borne children.

i have passed a few kidney stones and had surgery to remove another bladder stone that was too big to pass normally. they did not need to cut a hole in me, used a telephone pole with a hydraulic stone crusher and camera on the end up one of my connected orifices that was not meant to be so treated. luckily done with me under anaesthesia. i wee'd red for a week after.

the kidney stones hurt worse as they scraped down my ureter, hospital thought i might be having a heart attack with referred pains. morphine didn't help much, but did keep me from caring :) my female friends of course commented on those occasions 'it's the closest you will get to childbirth'. women are of course more deadly than the male and forget less than elephants.

anyway, i have never used that word in anger to either a male or female human, maybe to a feline occasionally tho. with the -cat ending suffix. i prefer staying out of hospitals.

p.s. = i would have replaced 'pu?????????ion' with 'brainwashing'.

[drac2k]

This is a "boys' club;" I thought it was a "sword Forum!" I will immediately send a letter to the justice department and request Loretta Lynch do a full investigation;next to transgender bathroom rights, this is the most important event attacking our nation.

[kronckew]

we do have a few female members - you interfere with their hobbies at your peril. i am sure they are capable of explaining it to you. meanwhile we are again drifting off course.

[ariel]

Well, folks, you have convinced me: as soon as I am back home, I shall uproot my pussy willow.
If one needs to be politically correct, one should go all the way ( oh, drats, another expression with less than pure implications..... )

[kronckew]

your tree is safe: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pussy_willow

i quote:

Pussy willow is a name given to many of the smaller species of the genus Salix (willows and sallows) when their furry catkins are young in early spring. These species include (among many others):

Goat willow or goat sallow (Salix caprea), a small tree native to northern Europe and northwest Asia.
Grey willow or grey sallow (Salix cinerea), a small tree native to northern Europe
American pussy willow (Salix discolor), native to northern North America.

Before the male catkins of these species come into full flower they are covered in fine, greyish fur, leading to a fancied likeness to tiny cats, also known as “pussies”. The catkins appear long before the leaves, and are one of the earliest signs of spring. At other times of year trees of most of these species are usually known by their ordinary names.

The word catkin is a loanword from the old Dutch katteken, meaning "kitten", on account of the resemblance to a kitten's tail.[4] Ament is from the Latin amentum, meaning "thong" or "strap".[5]

only male flowers have catkins. it's OK for males and females to make fun of our external appurtenances.many of us possess daggers whose suggestively shaped grips and guards are named after them.

QED, no mammalian genitalia references for your tree's moniker. ;)

[fernando]

... meanwhile we are again drifting off course.
You bet ... and not so constructively, i guess :shrug: .

[kronckew]

the fickle finger of fate writes, and moves on.

i myself possess no ivory objects d'art, that's my story and i'm sticking to it.

[A. G. Maisey]

I thank you for your explanation of the word "pussy" and "pussification", David.

When I complemented Ariel on his use of, and until you corrected my misunderstanding, his authorship of the word, I had taken its meaning to be something along the lines of "weak as a pussy is weak".

In the form of the English language that I have used in my day to day life, for all of my life, in polite conversation we understand the word pussy to mean a cat, most especially a young cat; the word "puss" preceded "pussy" in English usage, "pussy" is what we may think of as the diminutive of "puss". This usage dates back to the 16th century, and is still current usage.

But the word "pussy" has other very legitimate meanings as well. In the late 16th century it meant a girl or a woman --- and it was at that time not considered vulgar, but it did seem to have a sexual connotation, for example, one would not refer to an elderly dowager as a pussy, but would not hesitate to call an attractive girl or young woman a pussy.

In the 18th century it was understood as the proper name for a hare.

In the 19th century it was in common use in the lexicon of the nursery to refer to anything soft and furry. In fact, the term "pussy-cat" originated in nursery usage.

When I have problems in understanding the English Language, my habitual reference is The Shorter Oxford English Dictionary on Historical Principles, so after I read your explanation of the word "pussy", I turned to that source for clarification.

I could not find any entry that verified the use of this term to refer to a woman's genitals, so I turned to the on-line version of Oxford, which is about as up-to-date in terms of English usage as it is possible to get. What I found was this:-

noun (plural pussies)
1 informal A cat.
Example sentences
2 vulgar slang A woman’s genitals.
2.1 [mass noun] Women in general, considered sexually.
2.2North American informal A weak, cowardly, or effeminate man.


From this I can see that yes, when the word is used in a vulgar context, its meaning does agree with your explanation, however, in defence of Ariel's use of "pussification" I offer the opinion that at no time in this entire thread has anybody written in a way that could by any stretch of imagination be considered vulgar.

Thus, we must accept that Ariel was not writing in a vulgar way, rather, his use of language must be considered informal use, and once again, Oxford clarifies this position by telling us that in North America the word "pussy" means "A weak, cowardly, or effeminate man". Considered in the context of this discussion Ariel's use of the word "pussification" must be understood as informal English, and most certainly not vulgar English.

So words can be understood in different ways.

As Humpty Dumpty said:-
"When I use a word, it means just what I choose it to mean - neither more or less."

I offer that the same is true of understanding the meaning of a word:- we all understand what we read or hear in our own way. To Ariel, and to me, the word "pussification" had the meaning of a weakening of society, but to you the word had an entirely different meaning.

As I have commented above, the way in which a word can be understood varies during the passage of time.

During the 17th and 18th centuries in England, the word "occupy" was avoided in polite conversation, especially if that conversation took place in public. This was because at that time the word "occupy" meant "to have sex with". It was avoided in public because if overheard by the wrong person it could get you time in the stocks for the use of obscene language.

In fact, that master of the English language, William Shakespeare only used the word twice in all his writing, I believe it was once in Romeo & Juliet, and once in Henry IV.

But today the word "occupy" is about as inoffensive as a word can get.

The impact any word has depends upon two factors:- the intent of the person using the word, and the understanding of the person hearing or reading it.

I maintain that Ariel is innocent of any vulgar use of language in his use of the word "pussification".

[Bob A]

In websites with which I am familiar, the words "wuss", "wussie" and constructs such as "wussification" are used as a less gender-specific synonym for those of a spineless, lily-livered, milquetoast, pro-appeasement sort of bent.

(If I may further occupy your attention, the verb "to spend" has had, in past, a remarkable definition that perhaps reflects in Freudian fashion the gratification one might achieve through one's financial transactions. The connection between the definitions is somewhat uncomfortable to contemplate).

"Vulgar" is only truly pejorative when used to denigrate the common run of mankind, by those who deem themselves superior; today, they would be the ones who are in the process of ruining two thousand years of civilisation, so called, while those they look upon as vulgar are more frequently concerned with its preservation.

[ariel]

Thanks Alan,

As usually, you are not pussyfooting! :-)))))))


But let's go back to tusks and horns ( please, no arguments about derivatives of the later word!)

I just looked briefly at the recent Czerny's catalogue: plenty of ivory, openly defined as such. If our paranoia is so real, how will they send it to the overseas customers? Why were they braver ( or less prudent) than Bonhams?

[Rick]

Arial, just begining to realize that we all in some way have been living in police states, some more disquised than others?

Yes, and Big Brother is watching..(us?) yes; probably. :eek:

[kai]

Hello Ariel,

I just looked briefly at the recent Czerny's catalogue: plenty of ivory, openly defined as such. If our paranoia is so real, how will they send it to the overseas customers? Why were they braver ( or less prudent) than Bonhams?
International auction houses (including Bonhams) continue to offer ivory pieces; they follow CITES procedures and can legally send items with the necessary papers to overseas customers. However, auctioned/traded African elephants' ivory can't enter nor leave the US due to self-imposed current legislation; also Bonhams SF will probably have to stop auctioning it when California laws change in July AFAIK.

I don't think we can blame Bonhams UK: From what I understand (from admittedly very limited info), this vandalism happened in transit and Bonhams just received the pieces as auctioned; they maybe should have declined to auction them but that is probably asking too much of a commercial enterprise.

At the very least, transferring these pieces across state borders was a really bad decision of the consignee; since this appears to have been a professional, it's hard to conceive this as anything but blatant ignorance and possibly greed. Once held up in transit, I'm not sure wether there even was the alternative option of donating the pieces to a museum rather than mutilating them. Maybe even no-one cared to consider/suggest such a move. :mad: :( :mad:

Regards,
Kai

[kai]

Just re-tweeting from page 1:
https://www.antiquestradegazette.com/news/2016/uk-dealers-told-to-destroy-ivory-antiques-in-us/

[kai]

Hello Alan,

I fully agree that preventive control is paramount and that one needs to stomp in strongly to prevent the extinction of rhinos, tigers, and - to a slightly lesser or more local extent - elephants.

Much easier to talk about than implement, of course. And we need to talk honestly about poverty and failing elites, for sure.


Kai, I agree wholeheartedly that the execution of a single killer does nothing at all to halt murder.

However, if the consequences of a risk are sufficiently severe to be avoided at all costs, then the penalties that apply to those who fail to observe the laws intended to prevent occurrence of that risk, must be so severe as to cause not mere disapproval, but horror and extreme fear.

My suggested penalty may not be the most desirable to achieve the required result, but I am certain that sufficiently horrific penalties could be implemented that would not just deter people who were so inclined, from killing elephants, but would cause such people to go into a state of mental collapse at the mere thought of a dead elephant laying at their feet.

Things that come to mind immediately are crucifixion, hang, draw and quarter, that wonderful old Dutch speciality, The Wheel. And applied to whole families, or villages, not just perpetrators.
I did get the gist of your well-balanced proposal. ;)
I don't argue that it would have *some* deterrent effect... :)

However, I do hold that even severe penalties are a very inefficient tool: Even in the middle ages when the penalties mentioned by you were liberally applied (at least to the lower strata of society) it certainly did not *prevent* major offences from being perpetrated. While we certainly also need to talk about penalties if deemed too weak, I'd posit that we can have humane penalties and still achieve needed preventive measures (i. e. let's keep them mostly in the non-preventive realm - what you call detective control). IMNSHO penalties (as well as laws/legislation in general) need to be continuously monitored/evaluated if they really achieve their intended goals. As we have argued here, it's too easy to go overboard, even with good intentions!

Regards,
Kai

[estcrh]

http://www.internationalivorysociety.org/
Godfrey Harris, chair of the International Ivory Society formed to challenge strict laws on ivory moving through the Californian legislature, has taken exception to the language used in the proposal.

“USFWS has made ivory sound like a toxic substance requiring special handling by bomb disposal squads. If you didn’t know better, you would think that the next generation of IEDs are being disguised in old ivory billiard balls.”

http://www.ivoryeducationinstitute.org/
IVORY’S CONTRIBUTIONS TO THE PAST AND ITS SIGNIFICANCE IN THE FUTURE ECLIPSE ANY UNREASONABLE OR INEFFECTIVE RESTRAINTS ON ITS TRADE OR MOVEMENT.

[A. G. Maisey]

Thank you for your ideas on crime and punishment Kai.

I've already used far too much space in this thread, so I'm going to make this post as direct as possible.

1) if elephants are truly in danger of extinction, and if it has been determined that this should not be permitted to occur under any circumstances, then the measures taken to prevent the extinction of elephants should be absolute measures. If this means removing all human presence from , let us say, Kenya, then so be it. Give Kenya back to the elephants.

2) however, if this supposed extinction of elephants is merely the quasi political invention of those people who treasure the "rights" of animals, the "rights" of trees, and the "rights" those human beings who behave in a manner contrary to nature and to the established belief systems that form the foundations of Western Societies, and of many other societies, then the measures taken to remove this plague, this very visitation of Satan Himself from our presence must be absolute. If this requires a mass extinction of these minions of the Evil One, then so be it.

3) but if the truth of the matter lays somewhere between these two extremes then those who most strongly support the concept of elephant preservation must contribute the vast sums of money, and the armies of adequately trained personnel to ensure this preservation.

4) perhaps after the elephants have been saved, we may be able to give some thought to how we can save our own societies, and our long established traditional values from the perversion of the Grand Corruptors who hide in our midst.

[drac2k]

So we should not institute capital punishment to deter murder because it doesn't work, but we should destroy all ivory to save the elephants because this will work and we should save societies after we save the animals.
Is this the premise of your argument or did I misunderstand?

[Ibrahiim al Balooshi]

Arial, just begining to realize that we all in some way have been living in police states, some more disquised than others?

Though interesting to some ...may I suggest that this thread be moved to Ethnographic Miscellania since the so called Destruction of Artwork is not an ethnographic weapon...but is allowable in terms of that Forum...not this one.

[kronckew]

So we should not institute capital punishment to deter murder because it doesn't work, but we should destroy all ivory to save the elephants because this will work and we should save societies after we save the animals.
Is this the premise of your argument or did I misunderstand?

but it DOES work. i've not heard of a single murderer who was executed ever doing it again. sure deters him & saves the state having to support him for decades at huge costs to us. i have however heard of murderers released on parole from life sentences who did kill, and soon after he was released. one who killed someone, a stranger at a bus stop, while waiting for the bus to take him away from the prison comes to mind. there are degrees of murder, some justified, some crimes of passion by basically good people, but there are some people who are just evil and eliminating them is best. does it deter others from copying - maybe not. we never hear about the ones it did deter based on someone else's execution, only the ones it did not. kinda skews the stats. and the liberals forcing the state thru endless apeals to make those who are on death row suffer for decades before executing them is cruel and unusual. arrest them on a monday, try them on tues., appeals on wed. and/or thu. and public execution on friday at noon works for me. justice must be swift and must be seen to have been done.

Though interesting to some ...may I suggest that this thread be moved to Miscellaneous since the so called Destruction of Artwork is not an ethnographic weapon...but is allowable in terms of that Forum...not this one.

sounds like a plan. i agree. too generic and emotive.

[fernando]

Though interesting to some ...may I suggest that this thread be moved to Ethnographic Miscellania since the so called Destruction of Artwork is not an ethnographic weapon...but is allowable in terms of that Forum...not this one.
The minimum required indeed.

[kronckew]

:) feel free to delete the BS.

[Sylektis]

https://www.antiquestradegazette.com/news/2016/wagner-weapons-sold-after-ivory-elements-surrendered-to-customs/

[Bob A]

https://www.antiquestradegazette.com/news/2016/wagner-weapons-sold-after-ivory-elements-surrendered-to-customs/


Criminal vandalism, within the auspices of the law, the consequence of accepting the rule of people who know what is good for us, and make it mandatory.

I see little difference between this sort of destruction, and the wholesale destruction of world heritage sites by ignorant fundamentalists. The world is permitting itself to be ruled by barbaric thugs on every side, and civilisation is the loser.

[Lee]

I see little difference between this sort of destruction, and the wholesale destruction of world heritage sites by ignorant fundamentalists.Agreed, both are guided by blind self righteousness. On the British Antiques Roadshow (recently in the US, last year in the UK) there was an especially acerebric representative from one such advocacy group arguing for the destruction of all ivory countered by a V&A curator with the more reasonable view that destroying antique cultural heritage was not the correct measure to save elephants.

Some possibly good news is that I just read in the Maine Antique Digest (July 2016, p 3-A) that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has issued a final rule effective on June 6 that the paper describes as "... will make dealers and collectors jump through a lot of hoops, but in the current political climate I think it's the best result the trade could have hoped for ... burden will be on the seller to prove that objects qualify, but the rule does not require expensive forensic testing. A qualified appraisal, with strict guidelines, will suffice."

USFWS Final Rule Effective on July 16, 2016 (https://www.fws.gov/international/pdf/questions-and-answers-african-elephant-4d-final-rule.pdf)

[estcrh]

https://www.antiquestradegazette.com/news/2016/wagner-weapons-sold-after-ivory-elements-surrendered-to-customs/
This is sickening, no one has the ability to see that these are genuine historical antiques that deserve to be preserved in the same way that elephants need to be saved

[estcrh]

Just re-tweeting from page 1:
https://www.antiquestradegazette.com/news/2016/uk-dealers-told-to-destroy-ivory-antiques-in-us/
How is this helping save elephants?

[VANDOO]

Next we will ban and destroy all types of wood to save the endangered trees. Stupid is as Stupid does is the reason why. It's not about saving anything its more about destroying things. :(

[drac2k]

Ironic that you should mention wood, in light of the fines that the despicable corporate giant Gibson Guitars had leveled against them.A $300,000 fine, a forced donation of $50,000 to the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation and the forfeiture of wood valued at $261,844; I guess they needed tinder to get the fire started on all of the confiscated ivory.
Gibson Guitar Co. CEO Henry Juszkiewicz stated that they settled because it would have cost millions and taken years to resolve in court.
I wonder how easy it would be for an American to get his name off of a "No Fly List ?"

[Rick]

Thank God I ripped up the Brazilian Mahogany covering my decks and replaced the wood with Azek plastic decking! :eek: :rolleyes:

[drac2k]

That may be worse.Isn't that an oil based product, thus contributing to corporate greed, global warming and stealing the life force from Mother Gaia !

[Roland_M]

How is this helping save elephants?

It's more for the own guilty conscience than for the elephants.

What a world, we are destroying unique artworks to save elephants, which are died 100 years ago.

We destroy old, valuable and rare artworks to save the environment and at the same time we have three cars or more for one family.


Roland

[Rick]

That may be worse.Isn't that an oil based product, thus contributing to corporate greed, global warming and stealing the life force from Mother Gaia !

Yes, but I can sleep easy every night safe in the knowledge it will never biodegrade. ;) :rolleyes:

[drac2k]

Sounds like a fair trade off to me.

[kronckew]

i suspect a well meaning herd of touchy-feely 'ecologists' got together with a similar flock of politicians in order to share the one brain cell they possessed in order to 'save the ellyfants'. they decided that a massive deployement of nucular level force was required, and being bird-brains (sorry to insult all the birds out there who are much smarter than politicians) they picked the simplist approach. ban the trade in ivory and destroy any they come across being traded. there, problem solved. we are lucky they did not decide the best way to end the trade in elly ivory was to wipe out all the ellyfants. that'd do it.

reminds me of a tale i was told in my USCG days about an expedition one of our icebreakers took to the south polar seas to support a scientific expedition to study a small group of a species of seal going extinct so they could find out why. there apparently were only five left a male and 4 females. they found them, darted them, took their measurements and sadly two of the seals had died from overdoses of anaesthesia. included the male. the study of course sadly noted that the three females were the last of their species and the seals had no hope of recovery. i concluded that scientific studies cause extinctions.

[drac2k]

I'm glad you told me that "man," was responsible for the demise of the male seal; for a moment I thought that the other 4 female seals incessantly talked to him, causing him to take his own life.

[kronckew]

no. it was however female scientists that overdosed them. or maybe they talked them to death. we did a 'scientific' patrol to the north polar seas on our icebreaker to study the mating habits of walrus, they even brought a mini sub & of course CCTV to record it all. three months cruising off the north coast of alaska, occasionally dipping the sub in the water. the scientists spent a lot of time smoking strange smelling tobacco in hand rolled cigarettes. (:)) a few million taxpayer dollars later all they got was about 10 minutes of vague walrussy shapes moving thru the murky water. one of the more important scientists ate dinner with us occasionally in the wardroom (officer's mess). i once told him 'i know a marine smarter than you'. our helo pilot objected to that and was a bit angry - he outranked me as well as being bigger than me- he was an ex-marine pilot that has transferred to the USCG. took a bit of apologizing to him to get out of that one.

[drac2k]

"Walrussy shapes moving through the murky water," sounds like a typical summer's day with tourists at Virginia Beach;heck, they could seen herds of "walrussy shapes," and saved millions.
I wonder how much it would cost today to go on the H.M.S. Beagle for a 5 year voyage and accomplish what Charles Darwin did; would it even be possible ?

[kronckew]

va. beach - not to far from one of my old haunts at the USCG base at yorktown, spent 3 months there in the fall of '68 on a couple of training courses after i got commissioned. went to NOLA for 3 yrs after that. drove thru the battle field at least twice a day as we (me & wife #1) lived off base. very eerie on foggy mornings. i've crawled all over the fortifications & been thru the other exhibits there too. much more impressive than the similar field in metarie, la. where gen. packenham got his self ventilated & stuffed in a brandy casket in 1815.

[Rick]

"Walrussy shapes moving through the murky water," sounds like a typical summer's day with tourists at Virginia Beach;heck, they could seen herds of "walrussy shapes," and saved millions.
I wonder how much it would cost today to go on the H.M.S. Beagle for a 5 year voyage and accomplish what Charles Darwin did; would it even be possible ?

Have you read Joseph Banks A Life by Patrick O'Brian?
Good book.

Speaking of seals....never had any seals around here.
Now we do, and they have brought...... :(

[kronckew]

killer whales, saw a pod or two of those up in the aleutians, along with a bunch of seals, offshore tho, the whales must have had other things in their minds as they swam right past the unconcerned seals that were mobbing our cutter along with a flock of gulls.(cookie was throwing fish & crab bits over the rail.)

[drac2k]

There is a great deal of history around the USCG base in Yorktown ,Richmond, Petersburg, etc.; I have friends, who on any given day, metal detecting can come up with a bucket of Civil War bullets or earlier round balls from the Revolutionary War.If you were stationed in Yorktown, then you probably got one of the best grilled lobster tails and a wonderful Greek salad at Nick's Resturant;sadly it is no longer there.
I have not read the book " Joseph Banks A life by Patrick O'Brian," but it is now on my list and I will.
Funny you should mention seals; my Chiropractor told me just yesterday that he saw one on the beach and even though he admitted that he had been drinking and it was dark, he swears it to be so.It was probably just a homeless person.
In our beach area we can now offer you bites by sharks, death by umbrellas, a better chance to win the lottery than finding a parking space, flesh eating bacteria and an improbable but possible encounter with a seal.

[Rick]

killer whales, saw a pod or two of those up in the aleutians, along with a bunch of seals, offshore tho, the whales must have had other things in their minds as they swam right past the unconcerned seals that were mobbing our cutter along with a flock of gulls.(cookie was throwing fish & crab bits over the rail.)

Bro, that's a White Pointer .... they came with the seals.
Those seals consume roughly 500,000 pounds of fish per day.

Conservation's a double edged sword.

This shark is an average sized Grinner.

[drac2k]

Amazing! The shark and the man are sharing an inter-species moment, a common bond, maybe even friendship; you can tell by the eye to eye contact.Maybe they really only bite us by accident, they don't like the taste of human flesh, or they do want to be our friends................right, that shark is looking at that guy like he is a double cheeseburger with all of the fixings !

[kronckew]

aw, it's only a baby hatchling. his father will be angry. you don't want to see him when he gets angry.

[drac2k]

I think "you're gonna need a bigger boat!"
(as spoken by Quint, "Jaws,"1975)

[drac2k]

SHARK LIVES MATTER:
A Miami-Dade County man, Angel Luis Velazquez, who was fishing at the Torch Ramrod Channel bridge in the Keys was arrested by Deputy Donald Stullken for having a gutted and beheaded shark inside his cooler.Florida state law "prohibits anyone in or on state waters from possessing a shark that has been beheaded, filleted, or finned."
He was arrested and charged with a 2nd degree misdemeanor under Florida Administrative Code 68B-44.004, then booked and jailed.At this time it can not be confirmed as to whether the ACLU would sue Mr. Velazquez for civil liability on behalf of the dead shark's next of kin.It appears it is now legal for sharks to eat humans, but people can not eat sharks.
If I were a conspiracy theorist, I might see the ban on ivory, wood, fishing, taking away our second amendment rights, freedom of speech, etc. by the government as a slowly tightening haul seine net, who we, like the fish, don't realize that we have lost our freedoms until we are boxed and iced......but that would be crazy, right ?
The original article was by Michael Stern, mstern@miamiherald.com

[kronckew]

the sharks are winning.

[silberschatzimsee]

https://www.antiquestradegazette.com/news/2017/resolution-for-antiques-dealer-after-draconian-ivory-seizure/

:eek: :confused: :mad:

[asomotif]

Here the text, in case the link might dissapear in future.
Interesting info, I was not aware of this CITES 2013 guidelines.

The guideline makes some sense. But do they really think a barometer antique dealer is part of illegal Ivory smuggling and than offers for sale a piece of antique Ivory to blow his cover ?
Sad sad sad waste of police work.

----------
Quote...
----------
Clocks and barometer specialist Russ Allen, who runs Steam Mill Clocks, told ATG that 10 officers were involved in the seizure last month when he was arrested and bailed. It is believed a member of the public alerted Derbyshire police to the bronze mounted ivory thermometer that he had offered for sale online.

The incident has now been resolved with the police via a community resolution which enforced the seizure of the item.

Allen, who was represented by solicitor Bill Soughton at Johnson Partnership in Nottingham, was interviewed at Chesterfield Police Station by a local police officer and an officer from the Wildlife Crime Unit. The thermometer is an antique and pre-1947, but it is insufficiently worked under the amended 2013 CITES guidelines and therefore not legal to sell.

Alert Trade

Allen had not realised the item was not deemed worked and now hopes to alert other dealers to the regulation surrounding ivory. He said: “The trade need to be aware. We must stick together and pool our combined expertise to the benefit as a whole. The endangered species legislation is not going away and I suspect that it is going to get much stricter.”

A police spokeswoman confirmed a community resolution, which is used for less serious offences or anti-social behaviour, had been agreed and the item seized.

Maggie Campbell Pedersen, The Gemmological Association of Great Britain president and author of the 2015 book Ivory, said the December 2013 guidance changes on worked and unworked ivory had not been “widely enough publicised”.

“Simply to polish and mount an elephant tusk is no longer sufficient. It must now be carved on most of its surface to be considered ‘worked’.”

Allen said at the time of the police swoop, the police arrived “in a transit van and with CID and plain clothes policeman”.

He added: “The search warrant authorised the search and seizure of computers, telephones and bank records, the loss of which is bound to have significant consequences to anyone engaged in legitimate business. The police action is draconian and it makes me wonder how many perfectly legitimate and honest dealers are putting themselves unknowingly at risk.”

[silberschatzimsee]

For me this is all BS and has something of a witch hunt and public burning of books.

They should take countermeasurements with hefty punisments to prevent the elephants getting slaughtered in Africa instead of harrasing collectors and playing the political correctness card with the effect of nothing.
I think in reality 95% of all collectors are against contemporary elephant hunting.

Anyway i bet a lot of "mammuth-ivory" will pass the customs and hit the markets in south east asia.

[Sajen]

For me this is all BS and has something of a witch hunt and public burning of books.

They should take countermeasurements with hefty punisments to prevent the elephants getting slaughtered in Africa instead of harrasing collectors and playing the political correctness card with the effect of nothing.
I think in reality 95% of all collectors are against contemporary elephant hunting.

Anyway i bet a lot of "mammuth-ivory" will pass the customs and hit the markets in south east asia.

Very well said! Agree complete with you. :)

[mariusgmioc]

What about the ivory scales of antique weapons?

In the vast majority, the hilts are simply polished, not carved.

Does this mean that all aantique weapons featuring simply polished ivory must be destroyed?!

Does this mean that all Ottoman Kilij swords with rhino hilts should be confiscated and destroyed?!

What about grand-granny's cutlery that has been in the family for 150 years?! Should it be confiscated and desrtoyed if put on sale?

Am I missing something?

:mad:

[A. G. Maisey]

Pure insanity.

The information I have been given by a good friend living in the USA seems to indicate that at least some of the states in the USA are poised to become even worse than this matter reported to us by Asomotif. Indeed, he anticipates the situation to become so threatening that he gave me his collection of antique ivory keris hilts in order to avoid their possible destruction.

When I hear of the anti-ivory things going on in some parts of the world, the thing that always comes into my mind is antique musical instruments and religious artifacts.

Can we expect to see this entire segment of western material culture destroyed in the future?

[Laowang]

The United States has banned the sale of African elephant ivory across state lines; California has gone further and banned the sale of all ivory, no matter what the original animal, within the state.

In both cases, antiques (100 years or older) and musical instruments (manufactured before 1975) are exempted. Of course, the burden of proof is on the seller, unfortunately. This will make it more difficult to sell legitimate antiques, and legitimate antique ivory caught up in enforcement may indeed be destroyed if customs authorities are uncertain.

That being said, it's pretty difficult to enforce prohibitions of sale across state lines. There aren't any customs inspections as you cross from one state to the next, by air or land. The mail isn't inspected.

To anticipate the authorities entering one's home and seizing antique ivory weapons is a little far-fetched. Perhaps some distrust of the government is warranted, given historical fact, but it seems a little paranoid to think you are at risk for owning ethnographic weapons with antique ivory.

[mariusgmioc]

Well, apparently many of my questions and much of the speculations here are because of missinformation.

From all the information I gathered, the restrictions concern ONLY the trading of ivory and not the possesion of it.

Moreover, the restrictions do not concern antique ivory.

For more details, check the new thread I opened on this topic.