Destroying artwork

David · 17th May 2016, 07:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kronckew

...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 · 17th May 2016, 08:26 PM

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 · 17th May 2016, 09:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 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.

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 · 18th May 2016, 12:53 AM

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 · 18th May 2016, 03:24 AM

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 · 18th May 2016, 04:22 AM

Thanks a lot for your thoughts, Alan!

Just a minor quibble:

Quote:

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 · 18th May 2016, 05:16 AM

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 · 18th May 2016, 06:15 AM

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.

kai · 19th May 2016, 04:08 AM

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.

Quote:

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

17th May 2016, 08:26 PM	#2
Tim Simmons Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: What is still UK Posts: 5,855	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.

18th May 2016, 12:53 AM	#4
A. G. Maisey Member Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 7,015	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.

18th May 2016, 03:24 AM	#5
Bob A Member Join Date: Feb 2014 Posts: 436	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.

18th May 2016, 05:16 AM	#7
A. G. Maisey Member Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 7,015	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.

18th May 2016, 06:15 AM	#8
Tim Simmons Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: What is still UK Posts: 5,855	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.