Quote:
|
Originally Posted by A. G. Maisey
The world does not begin and end with ebay.
So what if they ban ivory sales?
Ivory sales have been banned in so many places for so long that this is just another minor annoyance--- and not just ivory sales, in some places and some instances, possession of ivory.
Prior to the CITES restrictions on ivory sales, specifically during the 1970's, ivory keris hilts could be bought in Indonesia for around the same price as wooden keris hilts, price of either depended on quality of workmanship and age, not so much on the material.
Guess what has happened to the price of ivory since the very wise CITES bans came into force?
Yeah, that's right:- same thing as happened to the price of alcohol during prohibition.
Want to push prices up?
BAN IT!!!
As for the protection of elephants, well, anyone notice beef cattle dying out?
Nope.
Why?
Because beef cattle have a use.
Since the ivory bans what has happened with poaching of ivory?
Do elephants have any use at all, except to make some of us---me included---feel good?
I'm all in favour of ensuring that elephants do not die out. I like elephants. Big, impressive, almost human in some respects---not that that is necessarily a recommendation---but yeah, elephants are good guys. Lets make sure they don't all get killed.
But this new age ratbag approach of the tree huggers and kangaroo cuddlers of banning the trade in ivory is simply not defensible in the long term on any logical or rational basis.
|
The banning of Ivory already HAS made a huge difference to the numbers of elephant stocks. In many countries where the ban has been for the most part successfully enforced, Elephant populations have boomed in recent years.
But there is still a market for ivory, especially in the faked/reproduction antiques trade, and it IS growing.
That should be a huge concern to every one of us for several reasons.
A significant (perhaps the main) market for illegally poached Ivory is China, and a significant market for the products produced from that illegally poached ivory are internet auction sites selling to western collectors.
If you could tell me 'hand on heart' that every piece of Ivory on eBay that is described as a 'genuine antique' or that comes with a piece of paper from a dealer stating it is 'pre ban' really IS legal, then there would be no problem.
But you know that is not the case.
Of course eBays decision willl not end the trade.
Just as the existing ban hasn't done so over the last 25 years.
But to draw the conclusion that such bans are not worth the effort because they are not 100% effective is simply ridiculous. They are a continuing fight, and if ebay feel that they cannot effectively differentiate between legal and illegal Ivory on their site, then they are doing the right thing by banning it all.
As has been said, I find it hard to believe that they will effectively enforce this new rule, but amongst their furball of mystifying decisions and 'thou shalt not' rules, this is generally a good one.
I think Ivory is a beautiful material, I love antiques and recognise and understand (albeit with some sadness) the use of endangered animal parts in
antique items of extreme cultural significance and historic importance.
But despite this fact, there simply can be no comparison between the need for conservation of entire species and the needs of a handful of collectors.
We are not talking about a ban on ownership of genuine antiques, or their enforced destruction, just a measure being introduced to continue to combat a continuing destructive trade stemming from what is an indefensible practice.
Yes genuine collectors of real antiques will suffer a little. But the significance of every piece of ivory in every manmade antique from the Chryselephantine statues of the classical world to Steinway pianos and every piece of netsuke inbetween is
absolutely NIL compared to the survival of an entire species.
I respect your right to disagree with this ban, and from your comments it seems you may even disagree with ANY ban on the sale of ivory?
But of all the angles that you could have chosen for objection, your argument that 'bans' dont do any good is simply wrong and your rather personal comments about those who support conservation:
'ratbag approach of the tree huggers and kangaroo cuddlers' is frankly offensive to me.
I sincerely hope those were hasty words on your part.
Reagrds
Gene