Banning Trade in Ivory Artefacts Made Pre 1947

I have no idea how may elephants existed in Africa before 1947 or any earlier or later date. I can only suppose that the year 1947 was plucked out of the air as a date before which there was very little deliberate killing of elephants for their tusks.

Our wonderful Minister of the Crown, Gove, is proposing to ban the sale and purchase of ivory products no matter how old they are. It seems that the objective of this proposal is to deter the killing of elephants NOW. Somehow or other, Gove believes that he can stop elephants being killed by banning the trade in ivory products in the UK which are very old. So, what can a person do with a knife with an ivory handle which he inherited?

But Gove was an instigator of Brexit. How can you trust such a person who equates Brexit with protecting elephants in Africa, over which he has no control at all? How can you trust a person who lives in such a dream world? How can you believe a word he says about anything at all?

Perhaps the EU Commission is the sane body and our own political body is the one that is insane.

What I do not understand is why Gove did not say, “Now is not the time to talk about preserving elephants”.

The attack on snus is very similar. Many years ago, flies were a terrible problem. They were everywhere in great numbers. My parents hung sticky, hanging strips from the ceiling which attracted the flies and trapped them. No one has recently studied flies and their effects upon health. You might equate snus with those hanging, sticky strips. Snus is an easy way to absorb nicotine, which is a beneficial substance, much like caffeine. Nicotine is beneficial in that sharpens perception. Perhaps politicians want us all to be dull.

Advertisements

6 Responses to “Banning Trade in Ivory Artefacts Made Pre 1947”

  1. Samuel Handley Says:

    The near global ban on ivory has done, as all bans do, exactly the opposite of it’s claimed purpose. Poaching has increased because the price has increased leading more people to risk punishment or death for the increased reward.

    In the US it is supposed to be illegal to restrict trade between the States. Despite this the federal government not only uses taxes to artificially lower the price of corn syrup but also imposed tariffs on cane sugar from all producers – including Hawaii to force people in the US to pay several times the global price for sugar and to have corn syrup in their food and drinks whether they want it or not.

    Similarly Canada and Alaska (one a foreign country, the other, supposedly, a member State of the Union) regularly harvest ivory from walrus and mine ivory, as the Russians do, from mastodons frozen in the permafrost. Yet this ivory, which comes to the market without harm to any elephants, is illegal, banned, and forbidden in the rest of the United States. Is it not likely that this has more to the story than saving African elephants?

  2. J Brown Says:

    While Gove may not be able to control the actual killing of elephants, he is in a position to control the trade of ivory in the UK, which, depending on the size of the market, would have an effect, IMHO.

    • junican Says:

      The reasoning seems to be that it is hard to decide how old an artefact might be. Antique dealers might be able to tell, but not policemen.

  3. Timothy Goodacre Says:

    The government want us all to be brain dead morons doing what they say without thinking.

Comments are closed.


%d bloggers like this: