Six tons of illegal ivory to be crushed

[Temjin]

I really hope that I'm not dog piling here, but I'm curious about something.

I just don't like wild animals or nature.

Why do you dislike animals and and nature?

Why does your personal dislike of those two things make you think that other people should be given the option of destroying them? Do you still have this belief in the knowledge that what affects the natural world has a direct effect on us?

Given the knowledge that elephants are important to the maintaining of their local ecosystem, and that people living in that area could be adversely affected by it, would you still be in favour of culling elephants to extinction so that we could have pretty jewlery?

[krakonfour]

I heard that some African tribes are allowed to go on a ritual elephant hunt once a year or something.
What happens to the ivory from THOSE elephants?

[Irbis]

Refer to the last paragraph of the article.

Refer to this line:

"A lot of this is beautiful art," Weisblut said. "And it's a shame to destroy it."

It just seems to me we're turning barbaric practice into something even worse, by making all these deaths completely pointless. If that even served the intended purpose, okay, but all the smugglers will care about is that they lost shipment. I don't think they care one bit what the state does with it later, if they even heard of the destruction.

Also, if we truly don't put value on ivory, we should destroy all of it, not just pieces made after arbitrary cut off date. Elephants were not any less cognizant back then.

Plus, it's not like these are historically significant pieces. They are all under thirty years old.

Pretty much every modern art museum has pieces younger than 30 years, as do all engineering and aviation museums with modern equipment.

I heard that some African tribes are allowed to go on a ritual elephant hunt once a year or something.
What happens to the ivory from THOSE elephants?

"Legal" sales of Ivory from south Africa are still going on, because these poor scum countries need the revenue

If we wanted to help elephant conservation, we would ban any and all ivory trade, as had been done with some elephant populations already, but that would meet with more "West vs poor Africa" accusations.

[Akhlut]

Refer to the last paragraph of the article.

Refer to this line:

"A lot of this is beautiful art," Weisblut said. "And it's a shame to destroy it."

It just seems to me we're turning barbaric practice into something even worse, by making all these deaths completely pointless. If that even served the intended purpose, okay, but all the smugglers will care about is that they lost shipment. I don't think they care one bit what the state does with it later, if they even heard of the destruction.

It's not necessarily aimed at the smugglers or poachers, but the final purchasers of such art.

Plus, killing elephants to turn their tusks into art is already pretty fucking pointless. The beauty of whatever art has been pretty tainted by this poaching and brutality.

Also, if we truly don't put value on ivory, we should destroy all of it, not just pieces made after arbitrary cut off date. Elephants were not any less cognizant back then.

Frankly, aside from historically significant pieces, I wouldn't be particularly incensed if all elephant (but not mammoth) ivory pieces were destroyed. However, this decision was based on what is legal and what is illegal to own. Morality does not always follow the law, nor, necessarily, should it, with the reverse also being true.

Plus, it's not like these are historically significant pieces. They are all under thirty years old.

Pretty much every modern art museum has pieces younger than 30 years, as do all engineering and aviation museums with modern equipment.

Are those pieces of modern art made from illegally obtained substances derived from the unwilling suffering of a sentient being that was killed solely for profit? My guess is "probably not".

[Thanas]

Also, if we truly don't put value on ivory, we should destroy all of it, not just pieces made after arbitrary cut off date. Elephants were not any less cognizant back then.

I hope you are not seriously arguing for this.

[Dr. Trainwreck]

It just seems to me we're turning barbaric practice into something even worse, by making all these deaths completely pointless. If that even served the intended purpose, okay, but all the smugglers will care about is that they lost shipment. I don't think they care one bit what the state does with it later, if they even heard of the destruction.

Why is it worse in this case? We make it pointless to kill elephants, thus chipping away at the demand for ivory. Poachers won't kill and smugglers won't traffick if there is no consumer at the end of the line, and what we're discussing is a useful step towards that.

[Alkaloid]

It just seems to me we're turning barbaric practice into something even worse, by making all these deaths completely pointless. If that even served the intended purpose, okay, but all the smugglers will care about is that they lost shipment. I don't think they care one bit what the state does with it later, if they even heard of the destruction.

Also, if we truly don't put value on ivory, we should destroy all of it, not just pieces made after arbitrary cut off date. Elephants were not any less cognizant back then.

Because if you put a piece of art made of illegal ivory in a museum the artist and the person who commissioned it get the prestige of having their work displayed in a museum. If you powder every single piece of illegally harvested ivory you come across there is no ambiguity. If you buy or work with illegal ivory it will be destroyed, no exceptions, no second chances, no just this once. If you want to make something out of ivory buy raw ivory, it's expensive but will be of some value and you can actually put it on display if you must.

[Kitsune]

Because if you put a piece of art made of illegal ivory in a museum the artist and the person who commissioned it get the prestige of having their work displayed in a museum. If you powder every single piece of illegally harvested ivory you come across there is no ambiguity. If you buy or work with illegal ivory it will be destroyed, no exceptions, no second chances, no just this once. If you want to make something out of ivory buy raw ivory, it's expensive but will be of some value and you can actually put it on display if you must.

I would argue that you should buy mammoth ivory
Not killing anything for it.

[energiewende]

So their proposal to help the fight against ivory is to increase the scarcity and therefore price of ivory products even further? I can forsee some problems with this. People who hunt ivory already know it's illegal, as do people who buy it. The reason it's worth producing and purchasing anyway is that it is so rare.

Would Ralin be saying the same thing about artwork made from human bones that are harvested from mass-murdered humans?

A lot of unique and useful medical knowledge came from Nazi vivisection. There was simply no other way to tell how people reacted to extreme cold, low/high pressure, being subjected to various poisons (at least in terms of precise quantitative doses needed to kill) at the higher end of tolerance. Does refusing to use that knowledge bring the victims back? What we know for sure it does is cause harm to people who are still alive, without doing anything to punish the perpetrators.

---

Can we not simply farm elephants, which would solve the problem of scarcity both of elephants and of ivory? And since it would be legal, it would be easy to mandate humane slaughter, as in production of meat.

[GuppyShark]

As abhorrent as your position is, the reality of the situation on the ground is that an elephant is a walking treasure trove to the locals. The increasing price of ivory is encouraging more and more elephant slaughter.

Some regions in fact do 'farm' the local herds in a sustainable way, because they are permitted to legally meet certain quotas.

Change the incentive to change the behaviour.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/dougbandow/ ... elephants/

[lance]

Am I the only one who thinks dumping the ivory onto the market and taking the proceeds for conservation efforts would of been a better use?

[PhilosopherOfSorts]

Can we not simply farm elephants, which would solve the problem of scarcity both of elephants and of ivory? And since it would be legal, it would be easy to mandate humane slaughter, as in production of meat.

Two things. One, you can't really farm elephants, at least, not the way you can with, say, cows, because they breed too slowly and their life cycle is too long.

Two, even if you could farm elephants like that, they're damn near, if not outright, sapient. That's the main reason I'm against hunting them. That they're endangered is secondary, it'd be wrong to hunt them even if they were as common as white-tailed deer.

[Imperial528]

Am I the only one who thinks dumping the ivory onto the market and taking the proceeds for conservation efforts would of been a better use?

The problem there is that you only further sustain the demand for ivory. The ideal situation would be to push the demand so low from regulations and the promotion of alternative materials that if you wanted to use ivory for something you'd go to Siberia and dig up a mammoth.

By destroying it in all forms (Final product seized en-route to buyer or simply illegal ivory en-route to producer in need of it) you make it unprofitable for all involved, eventually.

[Enigma]

Am I the only one who thinks dumping the ivory onto the market and taking the proceeds for conservation efforts would of been a better use?

The problem there is that you only further sustain the demand for ivory. The ideal situation would be to push the demand so low from regulations and the promotion of alternative materials that if you wanted to use ivory for something you'd go to Siberia and dig up a mammoth.

By destroying it in all forms (Final product seized en-route to buyer or simply illegal ivory en-route to producer in need of it) you make it unprofitable for all involved, eventually.

But doing so could actually drive up the value of the ivory making the potential for seizure worth the risk.

[Imperial528]

You need to be able to seize enough that the risk is not worth it. Selling or freely dumping the ivory into the market may bring the price down temporarily, but it will also sustain the market.

Driving up the value is meaningless if there is any significant chance of seizure, such that the chain of supply and demand is broken and the money stops flowing. Indeed high prices combined with a high rate of seizure may make it even less likely for persons to take the risk. Why pay X for elephant ivory when you can get a substitute for a much lower Y, and know that the substitute won't be seized?

[Lagmonster]

The problem there is that you only further sustain the demand for ivory. The ideal situation would be to push the demand so low from regulations and the promotion of alternative materials that if you wanted to use ivory for something you'd go to Siberia and dig up a mammoth.

I'd say that the ideal situation would be to come up with a manner of growing ivory in a lab, independant of the organism it's usually attached to. Then you'll have the horses as well as the cart. It's not the ownership or use of ivory that I think should be an issue, it's the way we obtain it.

[Stormin]

The problem there is that you only further sustain the demand for ivory. The ideal situation would be to push the demand so low from regulations and the promotion of alternative materials that if you wanted to use ivory for something you'd go to Siberia and dig up a mammoth.

I'd say that the ideal situation would be to come up with a manner of growing ivory in a lab, independant of the organism it's usually attached to. Then you'll have the horses as well as the cart. It's not the ownership or use of ivory that I think should be an issue, it's the way we obtain it.

The problem is that it's not really an intrinsic property of the material that makes it valuable, it's the fact that an extremely rare animal died to produce the stuff that people are paying so much for. The only way to make that work would be to have it exactly like the real stuff so it's not distinguishable at all, then flood the market with so much that it depresses prices so that even to people in Africa it wouldn't be worthwhile to hunt elephants for it, which would take some doing.

[Lagmonster]

The problem is that it's not really an intrinsic property of the material that makes it valuable, it's the fact that an extremely rare animal died to produce the stuff that people are paying so much for. The only way to make that work would be to have it exactly like the real stuff so it's not distinguishable at all, then flood the market with so much that it depresses prices so that even to people in Africa it wouldn't be worthwhile to hunt elephants for it, which would take some doing.

Well, assholes who only want a kill trophy will continue to kill elephants regardless of the circumstances and deterrents, because as you say, they want evidence of the kill itself. I'm referring to what I hope would be the wider demand for human-made art - something given value by a sculptor and not a poacher.

[Simon_Jester]

So their proposal to help the fight against ivory is to increase the scarcity and therefore price of ivory products even further? I can forsee some problems with this. People who hunt ivory already know it's illegal, as do people who buy it. The reason it's worth producing and purchasing anyway is that it is so rare.

Increase the scarcity enough and people will start looking for ornaments made from other, cheaper materials. Like, say, silver. Which may not actually cost more per gram right now, but it's a close run thing.

Isn't that a thing in market logic? Raising the price until the cost-benefit ratio becomes unfavorable and people stop even trying to get it? Or does that logic only apply when the commodity in question is one we want to see traded, and regulation threatens to increase the price of it?

A lot of unique and useful medical knowledge came from Nazi vivisection. There was simply no other way to tell how people reacted to extreme cold, low/high pressure, being subjected to various poisons (at least in terms of precise quantitative doses needed to kill) at the higher end of tolerance. Does refusing to use that knowledge bring the victims back? What we know for sure it does is cause harm to people who are still alive, without doing anything to punish the perpetrators.

The artworks made from poached elephants are not of unique "no other way" value, since there are both other sources of ivory and other whole categories of pretty things to put in your living room.

Moreover, we have every reason to think that Nazi vivisection will never be repeated. Using the data they collected has no impact on the likelihood of Nazis coming back into power and doing it to another hundred thousand people.

Unlike Nazi vivisection, elephant poaching is an ongoing thing. Insofar as there is a market for new ivory, poachers with AK-47s will keep trying to kill elephants and take their tusks. Anything that encourages this trade, or legitimizes the practice of making artwork from poached ivory, encourages the ongoing killing of the elephants.

Can we not simply farm elephants, which would solve the problem of scarcity both of elephants and of ivory? And since it would be legal, it would be easy to mandate humane slaughter, as in production of meat.

Farming elephants would be very hard. They are huge (famously so), strong (famously so), clever (famously so, e.g. "memory of an elephant") prodigious eaters (famously so; e.g. "white elephant"), and take a long time to mature. This is not a good combination for ranchers.

Also, it is very much a possibility that elephants are intelligent lifeforms, in which case keeping them in ranches to be slaughtered for their bones and flesh is ghoulish.

[Grumman]

So their proposal to help the fight against ivory is to increase the scarcity and therefore price of ivory products even further? I can forsee some problems with this. People who hunt ivory already know it's illegal, as do people who buy it. The reason it's worth producing and purchasing anyway is that it is so rare.

Increase the scarcity enough and people will start looking for ornaments made from other, cheaper materials. Like, say, silver. Which may not actually cost more per gram right now, but it's a close run thing.

Isn't that a thing in market logic? Raising the price until the cost-benefit ratio becomes unfavorable and people stop even trying to get it? Or does that logic only apply when the commodity in question is one we want to see traded, and regulation threatens to increase the price of it?

You're getting the logic wrong, primarily because of the nature of the contraband. The problem with ivory is only the production side: we want people to stop killing elephants for their ivory, and everything else is just a means to that end. This is not like drugs or child pornography, where the receipt of the contraband has its own inherent costs - addiction and other health problems for the former and exacerbating the harm caused to the victim in the latter.

The government's goal in seizing illegal ivory is to reduce the poacher's profit below the point at which it's no longer worth his time to poach elephants. This is achieved as soon as you take his ivory and paying him nothing for it. Subsequently destroying that ivory does nothing to his profit margin. However, not all of his ivory is being seized. If half of his ivory manages to make it past customs, his revenue is being cut in half, but he's still getting paid. That's where Energiewende's idea comes in. Using the seized ivory to undercut the poacher's prices means that he'll get even less money, because now he's competing with his own seized product. After all, why would you buy the poacher's tusk for $10,000 when you can buy the one that got caught in customs for $100?

Basically, selling seized ivory is using the anti-competitive pricing policy of "dumping" to destroy the other suppliers - except this is a case where we want those other suppliers to be destroyed.

[Enigma]

Or simply find a more effective method in catching poachers.

[Grumman]

Or simply find a more effective method in catching poachers.

That's easier said than done.

[Lagmonster]

Or simply find a more effective method in catching poachers.

That's easier said than done.

Replace "ivory poacher" with "drug producer" and you kind of get an idea of how hard it could be to solve the problem with law enforcement. It must be easier to protect the animals than it is to chase criminals.

[Wing Commander MAD]

Or simply find a more effective method in catching poachers.

That's easier said than done.

Replace "ivory poacher" with "drug producer" and you kind of get an idea of how hard it could be to solve the problem with law enforcement. It must be easier to protect the animals than it is to chase criminals.

You know, I bet this would be a decent job for drone aircraft. Have the drone loiter over the herd and watch for signs of human activity. Anything unauthorized and you can dispatch rangers to investigate.

Then again, the thought of having the poacher get a Hellfire missile up the ass for his trouble brings a smile to my face. It'd also probably be a better use for the U.S. drone arsenal than hunting "terrorists".

[Simon_Jester]

Someone once half-jokingly proposed giving the elephants guns to shoot back with.

You're getting the logic wrong, primarily because of the nature of the contraband. The problem with ivory is only the production side: we want people to stop killing elephants for their ivory, and everything else is just a means to that end. This is not like drugs or child pornography, where the receipt of the contraband has its own inherent costs - addiction and other health problems for the former and exacerbating the harm caused to the victim in the latter.

The government's goal in seizing illegal ivory is to reduce the poacher's profit below the point at which it's no longer worth his time to poach elephants. This is achieved as soon as you take his ivory and paying him nothing for it. Subsequently destroying that ivory does nothing to his profit margin. However, not all of his ivory is being seized. If half of his ivory manages to make it past customs, his revenue is being cut in half, but he's still getting paid. That's where Energiewende's idea comes in. Using the seized ivory to undercut the poacher's prices means that he'll get even less money, because now he's competing with his own seized product. After all, why would you buy the poacher's tusk for $10,000 when you can buy the one that got caught in customs for $100?

If there were enough such ivory to depress the prices permanently, this would be clever. Trouble is, there isn't- and cheap dumped ivory will tend to stimulate demand for ivory; when the supply of ivory for dumping is gone, that extra demand won't vanish instantly. Instead, it will go back to paying the poachers.

This is why I like the idea of dumping synthetic ivory, if that were possible- because we can't run out.