California lawmakers pass ban on ivory to curb elephant poaching. Do you support or oppose the ban?

[CreekDog]

California lawmakers pass sweeping ivory ban to curb elephant poaching

By Jessica Calefati

[email protected]

Posted: 09/02/2015 04:55:26 PM PDT

SACRAMENTO -- Hoping to discourage the alarming killing of African elephants, the state Senate on Wednesday voted to ban the sale of old elephant ivory and rhinoceros horn.

California made it illegal to sell ivory in 1977, but state law still permits the sale of older ivory imported more than four decades ago. If signed into law, Assembly Bill 96 would close that loophole and deter more poaching, says Assembly Speaker Toni Atkins, D-San Diego.

"This species loss is unsustainable, and African elephants are being poached at a higher rate than they are being born, which will result in their extinction," said Atkins, the legislation's primary sponsor. Strengthening enforcement against the illegal ivory trade will "help put an end to poaching," she said.

...

The Senate approved Atkins' bill on a 26-13 vote over the objections of critics who said it won't be effective as long as sales of old ivory products are still permitted in other states and countries.

...

http://www.mercurynews.com/science/ci_28747359/california-lawmakers-pass-sweeping-ivory-ban-curb-elephant

14 votes, 0 passes | Time left: Time expired
	I support this ban.
	14 (100%)
	I oppose this ban.
	0 (0%)
	0 DU members did not wish to select any of the options provided.
Show usernames Disclaimer: This is an Internet poll

[Omaha Steve]

1. K&R!

[CreekDog]

2. kick so the gun folks can vote

[Brother Buzz]

3. What about 10,000 year old Russian or Alaskan mammoth ivory?

Big business these days

http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2013/04/125-mammoth-tusks/larmer-text

[CreekDog]

4. that would be banned under this law

[Brother Buzz]

11. Ah!

SEC. 2.
Section 2022 is added to the Fish and Game Code, to read:

2022 (a)(2) "Ivory" means a tooth or tusk from a species of elephant, hippopotamus, mammoth, mastodon, walrus, warthog, whale, or narwhal, or a piece thereof, whether raw ivory or worked ivory, and includes a product containing, or advertised as containing, ivory.

.................


When I dig up that mammoth tusk I just know is hiding in repose in my back yard, I'm trucking over to Nevada to sell it!

[Lurks Often]

5. CA has had a ban on ivory being sold in the state since 1977

I don't see how retroactively banning the sale of ivory legally owned prior to 1977 is going affect CURRENT poaching.

As for the poachers, I'm in favor of drone zapping them.

[CreekDog]

6. they're banning the sale of ivory

not banning the ownership of it.

did you read anything besides the headline?

[Lurks Often]

7. Yes

California made it illegal to sell ivory in 1977, but state law still permits the sale of older ivory imported more than four decades ago.

So explain how banning the sale of 40+ year old ivory already within the state is going affect CURRENT poaching?

Apparently you didn't read the article too clearly yourself

[CreekDog]

9. YOU said the wrong thing about the law, YOU were the one that didn't understand it

Your first post showed that you thought the law banned the ownership of the ivory.

You were wrong. Then you asked me some question based on your laziness in not bothering to read anything.

And now you want to accuse me of misunderstanding the law.

You're just trying to derail the thread. How do you feel about the NRA?

And the reason you do it is because there is a thriving market for new ivory being marketed as legal (old) ivory.

[Lurks Often]

10. Yawn, I missed adding a couple of words and you start in with snide comments

You really want to stop poaching? Start killing the poachers. I think that makes my position on poaching crystal clear.

Otherwise the elephants and other animals will continue to be killed and their ivory sold in China.

[CreekDog]

12. so you're opposing a state law in California

because it doesn't cover China?

[Lurks Often]

13. I'm opposing the law because it is meaningless

and won't do a single thing to prevent poaching

[CreekDog]

14. Stop playing games, to you this is about guns and that's why you oppose it.

Here's your post from your second day at DU:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=268366&mesg_id=268620

Let's stop playing games about why you oppose this. Oppose it, fine. Oppose it because you think it's not a strong enough law, BS.

[dumbcat]

15. Do you have my second day post at DU

in my dossier?

[CreekDog]

21. You don't have a dossier, you have your posts, which are public

[Lurks Often]

16. Boring, don't you get tired of moving the goal posts?

I've noticed how you have repeatedly failed to explain how this law will prevent CURRENT poaching.

1. In 1977 CA made it illegal to sell any "new" ivory, although it continued to allow the sale of ivory that had been imported into the United States prior to 1977. Now they have made illegal to sell any ivory, no matter how long it has been in the United States to another CA resident. So how does this affect CURRENT poaching?

2. Here is the US government's position on ivory import: http://www.fws.gov/international/travel-and-trade/ivory-ban-questions-and-answers.html

3. Until you make it either unprofitable or too risky to poach, the poachers will continue to kill these animals. The quickest, most effective way would be to kill the poachers if they are caught with any banned ivory or any other banned animal body part.

4. As for my responses being based on guns, that is an ridiculously absurd example of grasping at straws because the discussion isn't going the way you wanted it to. That you had to go all the way back to November of 2009 shows how weak your argument is.

Again, explain how this law will prevent CURRENT poaching.

[oneshooter]

19. Well i would guess that since it would cause the death of poachers,

and they are often poor natives, then this is better.

As a Game Officer in Kenya I can tell you from experience that the "poor poachers" are well paid for their labor. I was involved in counter poaching for six months. My trackers (Zulu and Masai) followed tracks for days at a time. When I caught up in the truck they usually told me I was too late. Most died with a Masai spear through them or disemboweled by a Zulu assegai. My trackers HATED poachers.

After six months and 30 dead, 15 arrested poachers i was released from duty. Reason, I was told that it looked bad, a white Game Officer killing black poachers.

Politics. There is too much money involved for a "local" ban such as this to have an effect.

It is just whistling in the dark.

[sarisataka]

18. Some are taking direct action

To stop poaching.

Animals, So This Woman Hunts Poachers
April 8, 2015 by Amanda Froelich

The effects of poaching are not to be taken lightly. According to the African Wildlife Foundation, rhinos, elephants, and other types of African wildlife may go extinct in our lifetime. Take, for example, the Black Rhino: populations of this magnificent animal have decreased by 97.6% since 1960. It’s very clear that unless some heavy force and invested interest is given to help reduce rates of poaching, the entire planet will suffer from loss of biodiversity and the greed that is causing it.

One way activists in the United States are supporting an end to poaching is by enlisting retired vets to take part in an organization that puts their years of combat training to work overseas. The non-profit VETPAW (Veterans Empowered To Protect African Wildlife) is focused on protecting African wildlife from illegally being hunted and captured.

And a recent addition to that group is Kinessa Johnson, a US Army veteran who served for 4 years in Afghanistan. At the end of March, she and a team arrived in Africa to take on a new mission: According to her, “We’re going over there to do some anti-poaching, kill some bad guys, and do some good.”


Credit: @KinessaJohnson


Johnson and her team of fellow Vets arrived in Tanzania on March 26th, quickly getting down to work. She has already noticed a decrease in poaching activity in her team’s immediate area because their presence is known.

…And if you take a minute to look at the build and confidence just Johnson exudes from years in dangerous territory, you likely can understand why. Her team’s primary focus at the moment will be to train park rangers and patrol with them to provide support.


Credit: @KinessaJohnson
African park rangers are in serious need of assistance, as she mentions, “they lost about 187 guys last year over trying to save rhinos and elephants.” The training they will provide includes marksmanship, field medicine, and counter-intelligence.

Kinessa joined VETPAW because she loves animals, and because protecting endangered species is a cause that speaks to her heart. Because Africa experiences the highest rates of poaching in the world, it made sense for her to volunteer her strength and skill to help protect some of the wildlife who are too easy of a target for poachers. Another incentive is because revenue made from selling parts from slaughtered endangered species usually goes to fund war and terrorism in Africa. So helping to combat the first act of violence will hopefully help to reduce other aspects of conflict elsewhere.

According to Johnson, “After the first obvious priority of enforcing existing poaching laws, educating the locals on protecting their country’s natural resources is most important overall.”

Taking to social media, Ms. Johnson is helping to raise money and awareness for the cause. She now has over 44,000 followers on Facebook and Instagram. And if you take time to check out her profiles, you’ll discover amazing photos of exotic African animals and updates on what her team is accomplishing.


Credit: @KinessaJohnson


You can also support Johnson and her team by donating to VETPAW and sharing their mission. Soon you’ll be able to watch Johnson and her team on a new show, as their efforts are being captured by the Discovery Channel!

When asked if her or her team had killed any poachers yet in a Q & A forum on Reddit, she stated, “We don’t operate with the intent to kill anyone.” The African poachers would be well advised not to test this All-American bad-ass on that though.

This article (People Hunt Endangered Animals, So This Woman Hunts Poachers) is free and open source. You have permission to republish this article under a Creative Commons license with attribution to the author and TrueActivist.com.

[yuiyoshida]

8. Go CALI GO!!

oh, and... K&R

[Algernon Moncrieff]

17. I don't see the point on banning the sale of Ivory over 4 decades old to save elephants alive today

...so no. It'd be like banning the sale of 19th century scrimshaw; it doesn't do a thing for today's endangered whales.

Take draconian measures against the poachers.

[petronius]

20. The argument is that a lot of ivory is apparently sold as "old" when it is in fact not,

and LA and SF are hubs of this trade. So banning all sales blocks the deceptive sale of newly-poached ivory disguised as old.

Here's the text of the law:

http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201520160AB96

I would change that exemption for musical instruments, in one direction or the other. If ivory contained in pre-1975 musical instruments is OK, then I'd include any other object of the same age and provenance that include decorative ivory.

Or maybe better, don't exempt instruments either: I bet you could bring in a lot of blocks of ivory by recirculating a crappy old 1974 piano - just replace the keys with new ivory on every trip in...