[David]

Originally Posted by drac2k

First, we must thank Spiral for bringing this situation to the forefront and it is noted that all parties have made valid points, however one common argument that I have a problem with is the assertion, that it is of recent manufacture and as such, not worthy of protection.
I am unable to determine by those pictures what is being destroyed ;I can not determine the age, the artistry or the total scope of the items that are to be crushed.
Next, I have a problem with the implied notion that something has to be thousands of years old to be art or valuable.Hawaii, Fiji, Samoa, and many other pre-European contact societies throughout the world that were unknown to us before the 18th century, certainly have valuable and beautiful artifacts.Is a Albrecht Durer more valuable than a Van Gogh, because it is older ?
In conclusion, I don't want us to go down the slippery path of saying "well ,it's only 100 years old, so it is not as bad as destroying something older."The perimeters are constantly closing.

I seriously doubt that any of the statues in Spiral's photo are as old as 100 yrs. old. If any are then they qualify by most people's standards as being "antique". It does not seem to me that antique ivory is being destroyed by the US gov't. If it is it should be stopped. I am not sure whose statement leads you to believe that it is a "common argument" that recently manufactured art is not worthy of protection, but as Spiral has pointed out, these recent Chinese production pieces have neither the quality nor historical value of true antiques. No one suggested that a Durer should be more valuable than a Van Gogh simply because it is an older work. Both are acknowledged and historically important artists. But the same cannot be said of recent nearly mass produced ivory statuary from China. No one suggested that the work must be thousands of years old to be worthy of protection. I clearly mention antiques (which again would mean 100 yrs. or older) though in actuality if we need to draw a line in the sand, i believe that any carved ivory that it pre-CITES (1973) should be exempt from these new laws.