Ethnographic Arms & Armour
 

Go Back   Ethnographic Arms & Armour > Discussion Forums > Keris Warung Kopi
FAQ Calendar Today's Posts Search

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old 9th October 2017, 08:33 PM   #1
David
Keris forum moderator
 
David's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Nova Scotia
Posts: 7,211
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mariusgmioc
Yes David, you are right! Got taken away by the wave!

Thanks for your understanding Marius. As we have discussed in the background amongst the moderators, the problem here is that for the most part this IS a political issue, yet i believe it can be discussed based upon facts and logic without digressing into partisan politics or name-calling. I realize the difficulty though. Thanks again!
David is offline  
Old 9th October 2017, 10:43 PM   #2
drac2k
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 1,255
Default

When the "Night Watch," or the "Danae," by Rembrandt were slashed with razors, the perpetrators were said to be mad.When the Taliban destroyed
6th-century Buddist statues, they were said to be backward, vandals, and Medieval; so what do we call it when our Governments carry out such acts?
What we are discussing is the destruction of art and history, which I dare say transcends politics.
The sad part of this ban on ivory is that as the governments get more aggressive in seizing the ivory, Rhinos and Elephants are being killed faster than they are being born by the poachers who are realizing higher prices for their ghoulish work; supply and demand.
drac2k is offline  
Old 10th October 2017, 01:16 AM   #3
A. G. Maisey
Member
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 6,992
Default

Precisely.

Add to this the fact that there are more and more humans who need land that is also needed by elephants.

Sorry, but the jumbos just gotta go --- or the humans.

Guess who wins.

The problem is that most humans have the desire that elephants will continue to exist in the wild.

This is a many faceted problem, and any many faceted problem requires a suite of appropriate responses in order to ensure the possibility of solution.

This begins with determination of an objective, followed by identification of risks that can interfere with realisation of the objective, and the institution of a management plan that provides the tools to address the risks and then makes use of those tools.

But what do we get?

A knee jerk reaction.

In accordance with David's request, I will not make the appropriate political or anti-social comment at this point:- you all know what that comment is in any case, so I do not need to to make it.
A. G. Maisey is offline  
Old 10th October 2017, 01:55 AM   #4
Green
Member
 
Green's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Malaysia
Posts: 321
Default

may be a stupid question this, but is it difficult to farm elephants?... it may sound ridiculous, but what's the difference from cattle farming?

may be in this way we can satisfy our addiction to ivory.
Green is offline  
Old 10th October 2017, 04:17 AM   #5
A. G. Maisey
Member
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 6,992
Default

We came to agreement between ourselves that if the true objective of the anti-ivory clan was to ensure the survival of elephants, then the way to achieve that was to give the elephant a commercial value, in other words either farm it, or provide some sort of open range farm where the elephants could live wild until such time as they were ready to be harvested and their commercial worth realised.

But the problem with this idea was also recognised, and that is that elephants are big animals that need a lot of room, and they need land that is also needed by people. Regrettably elephants and people seem to be unable to co-exist within the same area of land.

So the problem perhaps is not the killing of elephants for ivory, but rather the killing of elephants to enable elephant habitat to be successfully used by humans. The ivory is sometimes no more than a by-product of the need for human living space.

If elephants in the wild are to be preserved, then the people who want to preserve them are going to have to pay in order to do so, and since they are big animals, that means paying big amounts of money.

Do they really think they can achieve anything at all with a ban that costs virtually nothing?

So, if it is going to cost money to preserve wild elephants, and make no mistake, eventually it will, why not make the elephant pay for his own preservation? In other words give him a commercial value.
A. G. Maisey is offline  
Old 10th October 2017, 01:28 PM   #6
drac2k
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 1,255
Default

Will the destruction of historically significant ivory bring a single elephant back; when it does, sign me up!
There are many reasonable short-term solutions that one can think up.
For instance, take the tons of seized ivory that has been taken from poachers, and instead of burning it, catalog it, register it, microchip it and legally sell it with an accompanying certificate to the new owner.They could do the same with beached whales that are now towed out to sea and blown up.
You would see many impoverished African governments with limited resources become very active in the enforcement of poachers, knowing that there was an economic benefit from doing so.We next take all of the money from the registered ivory from around the world and send it back to the African and Asian preserves and poacher enforcement, creating more and better safe spaces for elephants and helping the local economies with jobs; elephants and humans living in harmony, side by side.Room for all.
drac2k is offline  
Old 10th October 2017, 08:19 PM   #7
David
Keris forum moderator
 
David's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Nova Scotia
Posts: 7,211
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by drac2k
...take the tons of seized ivory that has been taken from poachers, and instead of burning it, catalog it, register it, microchip it and legally sell it with an accompanying certificate to the new owner.They could do the same with beached whales that are now towed out to sea and blown up.
You would see many impoverished African governments with limited resources become very active in the enforcement of poachers, knowing that there was an economic benefit from doing so.We next take all of the money from the registered ivory from around the world and send it back to the African and Asian preserves and poacher enforcement, creating more and better safe spaces for elephants and helping the local economies with jobs; elephants and humans living in harmony, side by side.Room for all.
Forgive me Drac, but this makes very little sense to me. How would selling ivory confiscated from poachers encourage African governments to step up their enforcement to stop poaching? If they did and were capable of stopping the killing of elephants for their ivory that would cut off the supply of confiscated ivory that the governments would be selling "legally" in the first place. Without the kill there would be no ivory for the authorities to confiscate. So they would need to allow the killing in order to obtain the confiscated ivory that is funding the program to begin with. Instead all this would do is switch the benefactor of the killing from the poacher to the government. This doesn't help save the elephant.
But yes Drac, the destruction of antique objects of art made of ivory does not, cannot, bring a single elephant back. This is the ONLY issue i see pertinent to us as collectors of antique arms. What we need to be doing here is talking about how we can organize a strong lobby to address these concern with our governments, how we can petition them to understand the absurdity of such ridiculous measures and correct any legislation that would allow for the confiscation and/or destruction of such valuable artist heritage. Destroying this stuff is simply criminal. But so if the continued slaughter of elephants for new ivory.
I could only support commercial "farming" of ivory if it were done so without actually killing the elephant. This would, of course, create many difficulties with wild African elephants. Not that it couldn't be done, but it would be an expensive venture and knowing humans as i do i suspect it would not end with a good outcome for life as an elephant. Yes Alan, i guess in some sense i am one of those "tree huggers" you were talking about. You are undoubtedly correct that as time progresses humans will vie more and more for elephant habitats. We humans are like a cancer on this earth and multiply far beyond our means of sustainable support. Frankly i favor the elephant over us, though surely he is the underdog. The elephant knows how to live within its means (when those means are not constantly removed by man) and live in harmony with nature. We, most obviously, do not.
What is clear to me is that the killing of elephants for ivory (or for habitat for that matter) is morally and criminally abhorrent. The world that was is not the world it is today. The resource of ivory as a material for artistic expression should remain a thing of the past, but at the same time that past must be preserved, not destroyed by government edict. Humans have no more right to kill elephants for the collection of ivory as they do to keep slaves another archaic practice of the past that we know know (hopefully) is morally wrong. As Tim suggests, ivory is simply a material for artistic application. There are other beautiful materials that can be used for future carving. The "addiction" for ivory that drives the continued poaching and trading of the material must be squashed somehow. However i do not believe that the banning and/or destruction of old ivory pieces helps the cause any. What i would rather see is than sustainable ivory farms that set themselves up for all kinds of abuses would be further development and perfection of synthetic ivory materials for present and future carving use. This is well within the reach of science and with further development could supply the market with an endless supply of material for carving.
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/scien...ory-180963226/
If we humans do not learn to live sustainably upon the Earth, like the elephant we too will be doomed. If we don't kill ourselves off in nuclear war or the planet doesn't kill off masses of us off in self-defense through pestilence or natural disaster it won't be long before we will simply not have the room or resources to survive. As our population grows to unnecessary proportions our species will continue to destroy itself (there are around 7 billion people now and by 2050 that number will almost reach 10 billion). Then we too will need to commodify ouselves. Soylent Green is people!
David is offline  
Closed Thread


Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:32 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Posts are regarded as being copyrighted by their authors and the act of posting material is deemed to be a granting of an irrevocable nonexclusive license for display here.