Washington State voters do it again

Status
Not open for further replies.
Elephants once numbered between 5,000,000 to 7,000,000 (edited). Hunters (there is a blurry line between hunting and poaching, and again it really is just who profits) have managed to kill 90% of them. Often for bragging rights and a few pounds of ivory. It's known that around 30,000 to 40,000 are killed every year. At this rate they will likely be gone in a few decades.

Let that sink in. Elephants. Gone. In a few decades.

Congratulations hunters. Those ivory grips and artwork sure were important.

Laws and policies have finally (in the last few years/decades) been trying to do something to stop this massacre.

Is the law badly written. Dunno. We'll see. It can be amended.

I am on the fence on voting on special ballot measures. As I contemplate it, I'm okay with special ballot measures that do not impact any constitutional rights. WA did pass an anti-gun measure last year on a ballot measure that was badly thought out and dishonest in advertising and the way it was written. That one really irked me, and directly impacts and criminalizing otherwise lawful 2A behavior and private property affected most people. So, I do not think that should have been on the ballot.

However, for tax increases and other public policy, I am generally okay with it. For this measure, yes, I'm totally fine with the state taking initiative to overlap or close loopholes on Federal and International trade bans.

Ivory may be "banned in trade" but there's enough loopholes where it is clearly still traded around the world. I've seen modern photos of Americans with their ivory trophies...

Finally, shooting an elephant or cheetah or lion or ape isn't "hunting" by any reasonable definition. You buy a ticket, pay for a guide, drive into the bush, walk around, the guide points to an elephant, you use your $2000 .300 win mag, take aim on a barn sized stationary object, and pull the trigger, ending 40 years of life. Yep. Hunting this is not.
 
Last edited:
Wouldn't hunting have at least some carbon offset? Since we are talking political correct this.

Hunting needs to be managed, yes. But hunting is a human right.
What a have a problem with is unknowingly becoming a criminal due to political correctness.
Now, hunting is one of those human rights that is being attacked. It will all be gone soon.
People forget that we are only animals, we have the rights of all animals. Defend our selves and get food and materials without money.
 
leadcounsel
Elephants once numbered between 5,000,000,000 to 7,000,000,000. Hunters (there is a blurry line between hunting and poaching, and again it really is just who profits) have managed to kill 90% of them.
Click to expand...

Really? 5-7 billion? There is no science to back that up. It is pure speculation, and not even honest, plausible speculation. Those are sensationalized numbers, just to show how bad and evil "hunters/poachers" are. Keep throwing out numbers without facts and see what sticks. Do I need to define "science" for you?

It is plain to see that you are not to be reasoned with. That's fine. There are alot of people like you in Western Washington. You can sit in Tacoma and make all of the judgements on hunting you want and pass all the laws you want that apply to everyone but you, because you think they won't effect you. Similar to those that say, "why would anyone NEED a magazine over 10 rounds". I don't take personal pot shots at people, but since you have no problem doing it, I guess a bit back at you seems appropriate.

As for me, I am leaving in a few hours for elk hunting for a week. I am not exactly sure right now how many elk there are left, but the last study I know of in 1990 showed about 950,000 in ALL of North America. Is that enough for you? I am sure they numbered in the trillions at one time. I could probably find some "scientist" to back me up on that. I hope by the time I get those antlers home that you have not passed another law for me not to be able to possess them. Maybe I can only pass the mount down to my kids but not sell. Oh, I am not a trophy hunter, I hunt for food. The antlers just happen to be attached.
 
@NINEX19.

1. It was a typo. Corrected. Relax.
2. Why do you possibly care if bans on already banned items is passed?
3. I have zero issues with legit hunting. I eat meat. Go hunt elk. Enjoy yourself. I have huge issues with people killed the remaining big game in Africa for sport and trophies; which is what it amounts to. It's an indefensible past time. Times change and maybe it was acceptable decades ago, but no longer. Just like many things, times and circumstances change.
4. Big game "hunting" is a detriment to the 2A. It's widely unpopular and sheds very bad light on gun owners like myself. Voters on the fence hate the practice and it alienates these voters from the 2A. Nobody is trying to ban legit hunting. But nobody has a right to go take the last elephants either.
 
Oregon had an almost identical ballot this year, I don’t recall it passing... I admit was low on my radar. Its interesting to see the link to gun rights, a poor link at best.

you all can flame me for it but I'll chime in support for leadcounsel's opinion on the matter because as a hunter, hunting is for sustenance not trophies. Lets call this what it is its killing its not hunting it is not culling it is straight up taking another life simply because some rich person wants to say he did it and put a trophy on the wall. Its killing.
 
It appears from this source that Oregon will see that measure on the 2016 November ballot. http://www.saveanimalsoregon.com/

It's noteworthy that Oregon passed a pro-2A measure this week on the ballot.http://www.oregonlive.com/politics/index.ssf/2015/11/oregon_voters_reject_spending.html

Coos County gun rights: Coos County voters handily approved a symbolic "Second Amendment Preservation Ordinance" on a vote of 61 percent to 39 percent. The ordinance seeks to empower the county sheriff to declare void any law deemed to violate the Oregon or U.S. constitutions.
Click to expand...
 
Big game "hunting" is a detriment to the 2A. It's widely unpopular and sheds very bad light on gun owners like myself.
Click to expand...
The 2A has nothing to do with hunting. Given the multitude of attacks coming from all quarters against the RKBA, I really don't see big game hunting being the one that pushes things over the edge.

Frankly, big game hunting is a huge part of the economy for many places. Money talks, pure and simple. Our state department turns a blind eye to, and sometimes cooperates with some of it, in Africa.

If one doesn't like it, that's fine. I'm not fond of some aspects either. But passing laws based on the emotions of the moment is never a good idea.
 
How many rich hunters are going to Africa to kill these animals? Let's have an honest assessment.

How has this impacted the animals in question as compared to poaching? In relationship to the ivory trade, marketing materials made from animals.

I don't think trophy hunting has an impact as much as poaching.

Sure it may be distasteful and some may not like it.

How much does a hunting trip like this cost? Are millions of animals killed a $50,000 a pop? At 100K animals killed that's 5 billion dollars. I'm not sure that legal trophy hunting is damaging to the population, even if shady.

I can see that ivory poaching can be harmful.

I really don't like this law, even if you feel African trophy hunting is low as you can go.

How do I determine the origins of any ivory like item if I'm not an expert. The dominos is a good example. A keepsake from granpaw can now land you in hot water.
 
The 2A has nothing to do with hunting. Given the multitude of attacks coming from all quarters against the RKBA, I really don't see big game hunting being the one that pushes things over the edge.
Click to expand...

Really?!?! I respectfully disagree. Social media is abuzz with hundreds of thousands of followers that hate big game hunting, and associate a man with a rifle killing a rhino. Pretty easy mental connection to influence particularly the young and impressionable crowds to make them anti-gun.

Big game "hunting" is overwhelmingly not supported by Americans and is an anchor on the 2A.

Facebook hit 1 Billion daily users this month. Social media is obviously massive - and one may be irked that this is an emotional issue, but the generations who think that big game 'hunting' is okay are dying away and not on social media. Not only do they do it, but then they post a picture of them proudly over the carcass of a once living gorgeous animal, and proudly in the forground is their MarRemSavChester .300 winmag Rhino-slayer.
Be irked if you want, but it's reality and is directly negative to gun rights.

So, with hundreds of thousands or millions of users who equate guns with killing the last rhinos and apes and elephants, it's not a leap to connect these issues for many people.

Do an informal poll of the general population. Ask them if they support trophy hunting and ornaments made from these animals. I'd wager 9 in 10 abhorred the idea and probably link it to 2A issues.

The days of big game hunting are numbered and the battle is lost for the "hunters." Someone wiser than me said to pick your battles, and this is not one in which I want associated with gun rights.
 
When I started this thread, I was interested in some detailed discussion about the language of Washington State Initiative 1401. I am still interested in that. I did not intend this to be an emotional debate about hunting.

I am baffled at how some people can conclude that criminalizing the exchange of animal parts that have been legally owned in the US for decades, if not centuries, will reduce present day poaching and smuggling in Africa and Asia. In order for me to believe that, I would have to feel that my possession of one pair of old ivory pistol grips somehow causes me or others to crave to possess modern animal parts, but I do not feel that at all.

I am strongly opposed to poaching and smuggling of African and Asian at-risk animals, but by attacking my ownership of one pair of pistol grips, the proponents of I-1401 have lost me as a potential ally. By writing language that criminalizes the sale of someone's grandfather's ivory chess set, and criminalizes the gift of Great-Great-Aunt May's ivory comb, the authors of I-1401 have shown themselves to be arrogant and irrational, IMHO.
 
Last edited:
I agree with the OP.

What's next? Pearls, exotic leathers, fur.

Some ivory was legally procured; I'm sure in amounts more than 15% and less than 100yrs old
 
cjwils said:
When I started this thread, I was interested in some detailed discussion about the language of Washington State Initiative 1401. I am still interested in that. I did not intend this to be an emotional debate about hunting.
Click to expand...

I don’t see anything in the law that says you cant keep anything you already own. I also don’t see anything that says you cant give the items away for free, as a gift....

So if you go to sell a gun with ivory grips just advertise, "ivory grips not included in sale". Then nothing is stopping you from giving them to the buyer if he asks if he can have them.

I agree it sucks that the law makes anything else one already owns worthless, it seems like the law would be required to 'grandfather' anything in possession before the date of passage.
 
It is unlawful to "distribute" the relevant animal parts. I am pretty sure that prohibits giving something away.

I am editing this post a day later. If you look at definition 75 in I-1401, it says:
"Distribute" or "distribution" means either a change in
possession for consideration or a change in legal ownership.

Clearly, gifting would be distribution under this definition, since gifting involves change in ownership.
 
Last edited:
Unless we are talking about cooking eggs or something similar, poaching is ALWAYS a crime.

Big Game Hunting includes African trophy hunting, and every OTHER kind of hunting where the quarry is larger than a medium sized dog. If you are trying to make a specific point, BE SPECIFIC!.

If you have issues, (and there are some that are valid in my opinion) about the way Africans conduct legal big game hunting, in Africa, I suggest the people you ought to have issues with are the Africans who control and regulate it.

The 'market hunter", aka POACHER, who dumps a mag from an AK into the broadside of an elephant, then follows it until it dies, so they can hack off the tusks and sell the ivory, and who then does it again, and again, until stopped is a COMPLETELY different thing than the legal trophy hunter who pays tens of thousands of dollars of his own money to collect ONE single elephant.

This money goes to the government and local economy and so does every bit of the elephant that the trophy hunter does not claim. Tons of meat go to the local village, even the bones are used for fertilizer. The animal is not "wasted".

We are at a point, morally and legally, where how something is obtained matters. We have had a law, for some time now, prohibiting importation of ivory. What was already here was still a legal commodity. And because only that ivory was a legal commodity, its value increased tremendously.

At this point, any effect the importation ban had, to discourage the illegal ivory trade, has been achieved.

NOW, this WA law, removes ivory from being a legal commodity that can be bought, sold, or traded. We are graciously allowed to keep our legal property, but cannot buy, sell, trade, offer for sale, etc. this formerly valuable material. We can pass it on to our inheritors, but that is all, outside of a rather bizarre and totally arbitrary set of exemptions, to qualify for which requires proof that may not exist.

I simply cannot see how this can have any effect on the illegal ivory trade in the Africa.
 
It looks like natural selection is attempting to save the elephant. Elephants that have tusks get shot so elephants without tusks are more likely to live and pass on their genes to tuskless offspring. If that doesn't work the elephant will soon join their extinct near cousins, the mammoth and mastodon. I'm not against sensible hunting but poaching must be dealt with severely. I can't comment on the impact of this single law in Washington. Probably not much.
 
Think of it as a gun control law. It will do nothing to solve the poaching problem, poached ivory goes to the Arab world and Asian markets, makes criminals of law-abiding people who have committed no crime other than association with activity unsavory to a portion of the population, and will engender police actions and court cases squandering public funds to no public purpose.
 
There's plenty of unsavory canned hunts right here...

This is nothing more than slipping a law in under the guise of feel good politics.

This has and will happen to guns.

This will not affect future elephants by restricting ivory that already exists
 
My problem with the law is that it usurps federal authority. I think this might be successfully challenged in federal court.

There have already been cases where a state has exceeded the severity of a federal law and the state law was over turned.

I deal in ivory on occasion at the auction house where I work. Proving that a piece of ivory is 100 years old is going to be very difficult. Most of the estates that consign ivory with us probably didn't save the sales slip.

However 15% by volume for a gun would be a huge amount of ivory. That's not something I'd worry about.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top