Nice ivory carvings you have there ...

Elephant massacre related to ivory trade 22

... you ignorant ass.

National Geographic has an interesting story about a recently discovered elephant massacre. The elephants had wandered out of a preserve during the rainy season where bands of poachers with high-powered rifles were waiting. Go here to see some pictures. Watch the fifth photo for a few seconds while it automatically zooms in on what appears to be a very happy poacher.

As you may recall, it is illegal to trade in ivory. The fact that elephants are still being slaughtered is all the evidence you need to know that someone is paying for it. Did you know that there are 10,000 businesses in Japan that legally sell and manufacture goods made from "legally obtained" ivory? Now isn't that interesting?

Where can you buy raw ivory stock? Why, the Internet of course. I was in a jewelry store recently that had a carved tusk for sale. I asked the clerk about it and was told that the ivory had been obtained before the ban. Which, as it turns out, is what everyone tells you about the ivory they have for sale. The truth, of course, is that they have no idea how old the ivory is, or where it originally came from. Rule of thumb: never buy anything from any company that even stocks ivory items of any kind. Ivory is clearly a status symbol, and the more it costs, the more status it has.

We need to make possession of ivory art into a shameful, embarrassing thing, a symbol of shallow thoughtlessness and ignorance. People who own this art don't even know what biodiversity means. Spread the meme. This is not a battle that will one day be won. This is a battle that will never end until the last elephant is killed. I look at African game preserves as banks of biodiversity. Thanks to some aspects of human nature, all banks must have armed guards.

My real name is Russ Finley. I live in Seattle, married with children. Suffice it to say that although I am trained and educated as an engineer, my passion is nature. I very much want my grandchildren to live on a planet where lions, tigers, and bears have not joined the long and growing list of creatures that used to be. In an attempt to minimize the workload on Grist editors responsible for turning my submissions into intelligible articles, I will also be posting on a seperate blog called Biodiversivist, which will contain articles in addition to those submitted to Grist.

Advertisement
Advertisement

  1. Tod Posted 7:26 am
    31 Aug 2006

    good use of fearHere's where fear comes in. Poachers should fear for their lives. I know that in some areas poachers are shot and killed. We need to simply step this up, adding troops if necessary. No, I don't know where the funds will come from, and I do know the economic pressures these people face, yet unless they fear death they will continue until we've zero elephants (likely within twenty years). In short, at this point in time, human lives are worth far less than those of elephants. Do the math.

    "Because the world doesn't matter if you don't have the strength to go ahead and choose something that's really true." - Julio Cortazar, Hopscotch

    Permalink

  2. bookerly Posted 10:59 am
    31 Aug 2006

    Useless Fear

       Fear as opposed to greed?  Fear hasn't stopped people from much in this world.  It is wrong to think that it will stop poaching.
       For the money you can use to hire enough people to hunt and stop all the poachers, you can also hire enough people to care for the elephants, which is not only non-violent, but also more likely to be successful.
       And cracking down on ivory smuggling and trafficking is also useful.  With all of our modern DNA science, why not this.  
       When slaughtered animals are found, DNA samples are entered into a database.  Agents can visit ivory sellers and match against the database, voila!  Big fines and jail time!
       After all, it is the rich ivory users who drive the trade.  Picking them off is more effective.  They have more choices about what to do with their lives and are thus more likely to be receptive to fear.
       This would probably be more cost effective, as well.
    patrick

    Permalink

  3. caniscandida Posted 6:53 pm
    31 Aug 2006

    "before the ban"On a different but related subject: Several years ago, there was a case in the US that had major importance among collectors of Native American art.  A man in Minnesota, I think, had inherited a Plains Indian war bonnet decorated with eagle feathers, and a couple of other objects decorated with the feathers of other birds.  He tried to sell them, to a European collector, as he thought; but the collector was in fact a disguised FBI agent.  So the man was charged with violating the two big sections of US Feather Law, as it is called, one prohibiting dealing in eagle feathers, the other prohibiting dealing in the feathers of a long list of migratory birds.  The sentence was a very steep fine, as I recall.
    These laws seems harsh.  But for the sake of the birds, they are just and enlightened.
    So dealers in artefacts made of elephant ivory similarly should be punished for dealing in anything of that sort, even if it was genuinely made "before the ban."  Under what jurisdiction, though, I do not know.  And perhaps the wording of the ban allows that one can legally sell any ivory object legally acquired before the ban.
    Here in NYC, there always used to be lots of stores around the Plaza Hotel, on Central Park South and 6th Avenue especially, and elsewhere between there and Times Square, with great windows filled with amazing arrays of ivory artefacts, including whole tusks decorated with intricate carvings.  They may still be there; I have not been around there in ages.  If they are, surely there must be some need to certify that these objects were made "before the ban."  And yet, I have no doubt that such certification is easily bought.
    Biodiv is absolutely right on all of this.  No matter the "legal" origin of ivory artefacts for sale, it should all be removed from the market.
    On Japan as a center for dealers in elephant ivory: I would not know, but I do not doubt it; every ivory artefact that I have seen for sale has been carved in a basically Chinese, generally East Asian style.  The collectors, of course, come from everywhere, and for all I know are probably Western.  Unlike the situation with such banned commodities as rhino horn, in which the customers seem to be mostly Arabs in the market for dagger handles, and East Asians in the market for traditional medicines.
    Of course, there is no bashing of any ethnic or racial group in this discussion.  Ancient artists of the Mediterranean, and Medieval artists of Constantinople and Western Europe, made exquisite objects out of elephant ivory, which is truly a beautiful material for a sculptor.  That in part is why I would never call for a Taliban-like bonfire of all works of art made of ivory.
    The place for works of art made of ivory is in museums, not in private collections.  (The stuff for sale in those NYC shops is kitsch, IMHO.)  In fact, the legal option for someone like that man with the war bonnet is to arrange to donate the object to a museum, have it appraised, and write it off on one's income tax as a charitable donation.
    On the National Geographic story: Amazing!, I never thought they got into anything heavy.  Good for them.
    The third of the five photos shows a rather large herd of elephants at the side of a river, unusually close.  Probably, they are all related adult females, plus their juvenile male and female children.  I did not notice any very small ones; they may be intentionally hidden, in the back.
    Unlike with Asian elephants, the females of African elephants grow long tusks.  Therefore, ivory-hunters are not like deer-hunters going after only bucks.  No, there is profit to be made from killing the females too.  All of them.
    Anyone who likes novels written in the style of Jack London, in which the story is about animals, and is told through the animals' minds and experiences, might like a book that I mentioned a while ago: Barbara Gowdy, "The White Bone."  It is grim.  The characters are elephants, trying to deal with both a terrific drought, and with what happens to the few scattered survivors of a family after a massacre such as the one depicted in the National Geographic photos from Chad.
    Finally, on the poachers: I do not know what to think.  On one level, I hate them.  On another, I have to take some responsibility for the poverty of Africans.  The huge difference between the rich and the poor is an unspeakable injustice.  Here and there in Africa and elsewhere, people in the undeveloped world who are living near wildlife are, slowly but hopefully, being convinced that they will be economically better off tending the wildlife that they live near, rather than killing it.

    Chickens are our cousins!

    So are other sensitive animals!

    Enough is enough!

    No more factory farms!

    Permalink

  4. bookerly Posted 8:40 pm
    31 Aug 2006

    Harvested Ivory
       When an elephant dies of natural causes, it's tusks may be legally harvested.  The funds from doing so help pay for keep the species as a whole alive.
       So, completely banning ivory is counter to current treaties.  Unless well off Americans want to redistribute their wealth South and to the East, this state of affairs is unlikely to change.
       It is unlikely African governments will agree to a complete ban without someone showing them who is going to pay for all this.
    patrick

    Permalink

  5. caniscandida Posted 10:13 pm
    31 Aug 2006

    But then ivory remains valuableBiodiv is absolutely right: So long as elephant ivory products in any form, of any origin, are available on the market, and are considered valuable; and so long as the current imbalance of wealth between the rich countries and the developing countries continues; then living elephants are in constant danger.
    Of course, on whether African governments are on balance better or worse, really, than the government that currently sits in Washington, D.C., I would only comment that being just a bit better is no great feat, being worse takes some doing.
    On a global redistribution of wealth: Right, that is the way to go.  Peter Singer has been saying as much for some time now.
    On putting up for market ivory from the carcasses of elephants who died naturally: The origin of that ivory seems utterly uncertifiable, unless the buyer, plus a disinterested witness, are personally present as the tusks are sawn from the carcasses.
    And then, even if that can be accomplished, which I doubt, the tusks will need to be watched over all the way to the artisans' shops, then the artefacts will need to be watched over again all the way to the market.  And the market itself will need to be guarded carefully lest any intruders try to introduce uncertified ivory artefacts.
    And obviously, dear Patrick, this is crazy.
    So, no, sorry, I do not follow your thinking this time.  Biodiv is absolutely right.

    Chickens are our cousins!

    So are other sensitive animals!

    Enough is enough!

    No more factory farms!

    Permalink

  6. atreyger Posted 12:30 am
    01 Sep 2006

    huh?For the money you can use to hire enough people to hunt and stop all the poachers, you can also hire enough people to care for the elephants, which is not only non-violent, but also more likely to be successful.
    I am imagining people coming up to pat the elephants and then giving them some peanuts. I think you mean caring for their habitat, since these gigantic (and quite frequently violent animals) are perfectly capable of caring for themselves (minus the high powered rifles).
    I think regulation (i.e. jail) of poachers is the appropriate response. Maybe even some regulated hunting of the bulls may or even should be allowed (as it already is) in order to reduce run-ins with human and non-human populations. In that sense having safari-minded gun nuts go over to Africa and shell out thousands of dollars is a good idea so that they can pay for both the enforcement and habitat maintenance, obviously creating jobs (a la US hunting licenses).
    I guess what I am trying to say is that regulated hunting should be promoted whenever illegal hunting is reducing a population.

    Permalink

  7. kmp Posted 1:25 am
    01 Sep 2006

    Not so simpleI don't think it can be as simple as just outlawing all forms of ivory.  After all, ivory comes from more than just elephants; whales, walruses, elephants and wooly mammoths.  There is a good overview of sources of ivory and their relative legality on a scrimshaw website here.
    Growing up in a Northeast fishing town with a strong maritime history, I must confess a certain fondness for whale tooth scrimshaw.  I can't imagine ever buying any, for the very reasons Canis provides above, but seeing it does not enrage me, simply sparks a little nostalgia for my childhood.  Yet, would it be so wrong, to say buy scrimshaw art from a tribe of Inuit Indians, who are legally allowed a certain harvest of whale(s) each year and who use every part of the animal, including the bone?  Would we not be helping to support a village that surely rides a thin line of substinence most years, as well as keep alive an ancient tradition?
    I can see where the solution seems to be simple, especially where poaching of endangered species is involved;  simply outlaw all forms of ivory.  However, I do not think that outlawing ivory will stop it from being sold (look at the money & time wasted on the War on Drugs).
    I imagine that a more complex, regionally reasoned and applied policy that controls poaching yet allows for some legal "harvest" by locals, would be the most successful, could it be accomplished.

    Permalink

  8. caniscandida Posted 4:34 am
    01 Sep 2006

    scrimshawYes, Kaela, that is a beautiful art form.  I guess, historically, it is made from the teeth of sperm whales, e.g. Moby Dick (baleen whales of course do not have teeth), which the old-time Yankee whalers killed on their voyages in the Pacific.  The whalers had so much time on their hands, most of the time, that they would create these beautiful little objects on the way back to New Bedford or Nantucket or Gloucester or P-town or wherever.  The Peabody-Essex Museum in Salem has all sorts of treasures that Yankee sailors brought back from the Pacific, and East and South Asia.
    Anyway, I do not know what kinds of ivory the international ban is supposed to target.  I assumed it was only elephant ivory.
    Inuit art is a favorite of mine.  I do not think Inuit carving of walrus ivory is technically called scrimshaw, however.  My favorite genre is those amazing multi-media masks made by the Yup'ik, from western Alaska, around the lower Yukon valley.
    As for the walrus, whether they are as endangered as elephants at this point, I do not know; I rather doubt it.  But in this wonderful world in which we live, it seems nearly everything is endangered, everything that is that is not particularly comfortable with human beings being present.
    Now there is an interesting idea: scrimshaw made with rat incisor!
    As for the ethics of using mammoth ivory, I have not quite thought that through.  But I have indeed seen it used in impressive ways by Inuit artists.

    Chickens are our cousins!

    So are other sensitive animals!

    Enough is enough!

    No more factory farms!

    Permalink

  9. bookerly Posted 10:45 am
    01 Sep 2006

    Harvesting Ivory II

      Dear CanisCandida,
            I am sorry you misunderstood me.  I am not an advocate of harvesting ivory.  I am merely describing the current situation to you.  The trade in ivory is a matter of treaty, and the African nations were adamant about being allowed to sell ivory that was harvested in a sustainable way.
            Whether you (or I) like it or not is irrelevant. (smile).  I for one, would be happiest if everyone became vegetarians and stopped using any products that required the death of the animals.  But I won't hold my breath.
            Basically I agree with Biodiversivist in my heart, but practically it isn't going to happen.  We also need to be sensitive to the needs of the local population.  And Atreyger is correct in that elephants are strong wild animals.  Sometimes they destroy human crops and dwellings.  Who pays for this?
            If we want to stop the trade, we need to be prepared to shell out some money.  Not that much really (compared to the money we spend trying to destroy Iraq).  But we need to pay to play.
    patrick

    Permalink

  10. caniscandida Posted 4:04 pm
    01 Sep 2006

    "pay to play"Yes, dear Patrick, I entirely agree that the ban on merchandising in elephant ivory, no matter how strong the international treaty is (and no, I did not know of the position that you ascribe to some African countries), will probably never be sufficient to put an end to the murder of elephants.  And yes, shelling out some money will surely be part of the solution, that plus some sensible program for how to use it well, plus good will, plus compassion for both people and elephants.
    The issue raised by ATreyger, ever the dark stormcloud lowering over the Adirondacks, is not to be denied, and is most serious.  Elephants in Africa have been destructive of human settlements and agriculture, and sometimes even deadly.  The same is true of their cousins in India, in West Bengal especially, I believe.
    But let us understand what is going on, clearly, not with an anthropocentric lens.  It is the humans who have settled in the habitat of wildlife, so naturally there are going to be more encounters, not always friendly.
    Hence also the increase of deadly attacks by lions in Tanzania.  Hence also the consistently high number of night-time mortalities caused by hippopotami, arguably the deadliest non-human mammal in Africa, which forage at night, and attack humans who get between them and their river.
    Hence also the increase of attacks by alligators in Florida, and cougars in our western states.
    Hence also the increasing resort to "bush meat," including monkeys, apes and hoofed mammals, on the part of the expanding populations of central Africa.  Jane Goodall has plenty to say on that subject.
    Elephants are not "capable of caring for themselves," if they have no where to go where they can eat in peace.
    I have no idea what solutions there may be.  In India, teams of domesticated elephants have been used to drive wild elephants from farmers' fields; but that seems like just a stopgap measure.
    In South Africa, where elephants have become too numerous in some areas, culling the herds has been suggested.  Perhaps that is a solution that would satisfy our gentle ATreyger; but, needless to say, it is a highly controversial suggestion, and one which I believe has been not much carried out.
    Addendum to Kaela on "scrimshaw": One ethical consideration that I failed to take into account earlier is that sperm whales have never been killed primarily for the sake of acquiring their teeth; and the Inuit do not kill walruses primarily for the sake of acquiring their tusks.  Or so I believe.  It is other parts of the carcasses which are of primary value to the killers of those animals, and the teeth and tusks are incidental parts that they later put to good use.  That of course is entirely different from killing an elephant only in order to saw off its tusks.
    But also, was there not a fashion in home decoration, in Britain during the Victorian period, to have umbrella stands made out of elephants' feet?  What in the world was that all about??

    Chickens are our cousins!

    So are other sensitive animals!

    Enough is enough!

    No more factory farms!

    Permalink

  11. bookerly Posted 6:58 pm
    01 Sep 2006

    Database

       Well, I still think my idea of a DNA database that lets us track ivory is the best bet.  I'm not sure of the practicality of it, but taking samples from poached elephants is certainly possible.  How expensive such a setup would be, and how hard it would be to take samples in shops and at borders is not clear.
       It's one of the things that I think we should be willing to pay for (as well as compensation funds for people who's livlihood is affected).  We could perhaps tax all ivory sales (old and new) to help fund it.  We owe the elephants...
    patrick

    Permalink

  12. caniscandida Posted 2:29 am
    02 Sep 2006

    it's a startSure, Patrick, cool idea, why not try it.
    I assume what you mean is that when wildlife officials come upon a carcass of an elephant that has had its tusks sawn off, they are to take a tissue sample, and later record the DNA.  Then, some time later, when an ivory object that is made from one of those tusks comes on the market, the DNA present in the object is analysed, and will be seen to match the DNA of the carcass.
    Hmmm.  Of course there may be a lot of undiscovered carcasses out there, so the method cannot be relied on to catch all recent ivory.

    Chickens are our cousins!

    So are other sensitive animals!

    Enough is enough!

    No more factory farms!

    Permalink

  13. frantique1 Posted 2:11 am
    05 Sep 2006

    IvoryWhat is a person supposed to do with antique jewelry that is made of ivory?  I have a beautiful bracelet of ivory, lapis and silver that is too good to just throw out.  Granted, I don't wear it for fear that it would condone other 21st century consumers to seek out like pieces of adornment.  Comments?

    Permalink

  14. bookerly Posted 8:00 am
    05 Sep 2006

    Ivory in a box

       Hi Frantique1,
          I vote for you to put it in a box marked "don't open before 2200" and leave it for your descendants.
          You can also write a note explaining what you are doing and why and put that in the box.  It can be a mystery heirloom of unknown value.
    patrick

    Permalink

  15. caniscandida Posted 6:26 pm
    05 Sep 2006

    no ordinary ivory braceletDear Mlle Frantique la premiere,
    the suggestion of our dear, thoughtful friend Patrick in Beijing has merit.  But I cannot follow him, in the advice he gave you.  Like most communists, he lacks an eye for beauty. : )
    (He is still weeping over that adorable wall that those strong-limbed youths knocked down with hammers, in Berlin.)
    I would say, this bracelet of yours is surely distinctive, and deserves to be shown off.  Lapis lazuli next to ivory is a design concept going back to ancient Mesopotamia, 3000 BCE, so you have a potentially important piece of jewelry.
    I repeat more clearly what I had said earlier: Ivory from elephants is a gorgeous substance for sculptors to work in, and many great works of art are made from elephant ivory, especially IMHO in the Christian Middle Ages.  I wish, however, that we Christians were rather more like the Inuit, and other Native Americans, in gratefully acknowledging the death of living beings that allows us better to live.
    So by all means, wear your bracelet, bless the carver of the lapis, bless the silver-worker, bless the elephant, and thank God.  And let people see what you have got!

    Chickens are our cousins!

    So are other sensitive animals!

    Enough is enough!

    No more factory farms!

    Permalink

  16. Biodiversivist's avatar

    Biodiversivist Posted 3:26 am
    06 Sep 2006

    Some good thoughts hereI tend to agree with Atreyger. Hunting some animals to protect the rest has proven to be an effective strategy in many instances (one species of rhino has been saved that way).
    I am with Canis and also like Patrick's tax idea.
    Kmp's analogy of the lack of success on the war on drugs also crossed my mind. Which also suggests that legalizing hunting, like making pot legal, might help the problem. A cast of the tusks can be given to the hunters, while the tusks themselves are burned in trubute to the elephant that gave its life to protect its species.
    That's a tough one Frantique. What is to prevent a descendant from selling it off and having it mix with the old and new ivory trade? How is this for an idea? Have a conservation organizatio create a website that asks people to donate their ivory art to elephant conservation. Photos of all the art is put on display for museums to bid on. All ivory not bought by museums will be publically burned with much media fanfare to emphsize the seriousness of conservation. It could be an annuyal event to keep refreshing the public memory. Just an idea.

    In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Help acquire and protect ecological hotspots, give to a conservation organization: http://www.saveourbiodiversity.com

    Permalink

  17. Biodiversivist's avatar

    Biodiversivist Posted 3:29 am
    06 Sep 2006

    Oh, andThe names of those who donate will be inscribed on a virtual scroll of honor for all to see. A trubute to their sacrifice and depth of thought as well (which can be printed out and framed for your living room mantle).

    In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Help acquire and protect ecological hotspots, give to a conservation organization: http://www.saveourbiodiversity.com

    Permalink

  18. bookerly Posted 4:28 am
    06 Sep 2006

    Wall, what wall?

      My Cher CanisCandida,
           I am not (strictly speaking) a communist, though I have studied Marx as well as Adam Smith.
           I cheered when the Berlin Wall fell, and will cheer when the foolish wall you are building along the Southern border falls too!  (If I come back to the states, I will help pull it down (smile)).
           Alas, I may not invite you, though to my gallery opening, since you have already written me off as a philistine! (LOL).
    pace,
    patrick

    Permalink

  19. cgd Posted 6:57 am
    20 Sep 2006

    boone trading co.The link in the original article goes to Boone Trading Co. in Washington.  As a carver of bones myself, I have purchased from them and have even visited their location in the rainforest of the Olympic Peninsula.  I can attest that they are very strict when it comes to abiding by all local and international laws pertaining to their products and raw materials.  
    No need to vilify this particular company.  The issue in this particular case is cut and dry - not one of selling within the law, but one strictly of ethics.  I doubt that all companies are as thorough.

    Permalink

  20. Biodiversivist's avatar

    Biodiversivist Posted 8:22 am
    20 Sep 2006

    Thanks for the noteThere was no intent to villify a single company. They were just the first ones on the google search. All dealers are at the mercy of forged documents.

    In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Help acquire and protect ecological hotspots, give to a conservation organization: http://www.saveourbiodiversity.com

    Permalink

  21. Robert Delfs Posted 1:54 pm
    20 Sep 2006

    My ivory problemI tend to be supportive to biodiversivist's suggestion that we should make possession of ivory art something shameful and embarrassing.  I feel that way about this already, which is why I'm sympathetic to frantique1's situation as well.  
    My great aunt collected Asian art. After her death, I inherited from her a statue depicting the Buddhist goddess Kuan-yin (Avalokiteśvara) carved from ivory. The piece had been purchased from a dealer in Honolulu in 1950 or 1951, presumably part of the flood of Chinese antiquities out of China and Hong Kong after the Communnist victory in 1949. I can still remember being spellbound looking at this piece when I was a child - which was the reason it was left to me.
    This is a work of art that happens to be made of ivory, probably more than a century ago. (There is a Qianlong reign-mark carved on the bottom.) Even if it's a later fake, it had to be been carved sometime before my great-aunt purchased it in 1950 or 1951.
    The carving is in storage in the US, and may languish there forever. Obviously I can't bring it to my home here in Indonesia - it may still be legal to possess ivory, but even documented 'old' ivory cannot be transported internationally.
    Which is too bad.  This is a beautiful object, and the carver was an artist of extraordinary grace and skill.  For the sake of that artist, and the elephant that was killed to make it, it would be nice if this could be seen.
    But I'm conflicted enough about this that I may never exhibit it in my home even if I move back to the US. I'm not anxious to be exposed to the charge of hypocrisy for possessing this object at the same time that I oppose the killing of elephants and other ivory-bearing mammals.
    But burn it? No.  Whatever this may mean to us today, I can't condemn this artist (or the hunter) for violating laws or ethical principles "of the future" that they never knew nor could even have imagined.
    Standards do change. I know people who find the idea of leather clothes or shoes utterly repugnant. In a few more generations, an object carved from wood might even seem obscene.
    (Interesting asides: One Buddhist legend presents Kuan Yin as vowing to never rest until he/she had freed all sentient beings from samsara, (suffering, reincarnation, etc.).  Because of the strong linkage between Kuanyin and compassion for other living things, this deity is often associated in China with vegetarianism.)

    Robert Delfs

    Permalink

  22. caniscandida Posted 3:28 am
    21 Sep 2006

    "shame"Thanks, Frogfish, for sharing your interesting case.  And for elaborating on Kuan-Yin/Avalokitsvara him/herself.  (It is interesting that this bodhisattva starts out as male in India, but seems to become female in East Asia.  Whether he/she is found anywhere in the Theravada regions, I would not know; the concept of the bodhisattva is distinctive of Mahayana.)
    (There is a jataka, I think, about the Buddha in an earlier incarnation in the form of a rabbit.  He had compassion for a starving beggar, who had nothing of much substance to put into his pot of boiling water, and was wondering if that would be his last meal.  The Buddha/rabbit resolved to sacrifice himself in order to save the beggar's life, and become meat for his stew; but before leaping into the pot, he thoroughly shook himself, to knock from his fur every flea.  Out of compassion for them, he would not force them to join him in his sacrifice.
    And so, with that noble example in mind, whenever Michael is tempted to squash a bug, I intervene, saying, "Ah, please reconsider, and out of compassion, spare that future bodhisattva!")
    Thanks also, Robert, for promising not to burn your statue.  I think you and Frantique can display your old ivory works of art without shame or hypocrisy, since it is clear you both understand the grave moral difficulties with the commodification of ivory artefacts, and no doubt you both make very clear to the small number of people who admire these objects both the plight of elephants and your opposition to the illegal, immoral, deadly exploitation of them for the sake of their ivory.
    Now that we have revisited this subject, there is an opportunity to set aright something that I wrote, on scrimshaw, which I think is inaccurate.  I suggested, earlier in this thread, that all walrus ivory is a secondarily utilized part of the carcasses of walruses hunted and killed by Inuit for more essential purposes.  But something I read subsequently tells me that is not quite right.  There are indeed Euro-American hunters (and perhaps other non-Inuits) who are reported to hunt and kill walruses only for the sake of taking their tusks.  Probably such hunting is not the greatest environmental pressure on walrus populations, even as whaling is reportedly not the greatest pressure on whales.  Still, it must be considered significant.

    Chickens are our cousins!

    So are other sensitive animals!

    Enough is enough!

    No more factory farms!

    Permalink

Add a Comment

You are not logged in. Thus, you cannot post a comment. If you have an account, log in. If you don't have an account, well, by all means go make one! Meet you back here in five.

Hello, Visitor!    Why not register?

Viewed
More
Commented
More
Advertisement