Jabberwocky wrote:But not obvious enough to you right, Peter? You said you were not aware. It was obvious enough to me.
I am not going to be coy about it: It is not about observing the letter of the law. It is about observing and respecting the spirit of it.
Nobody who claims to be well-educated can claim to be unaware of the situation with Western African Ivory and ivory, in general. It is disingenuous in the extreme.
Fess up. Apologise. Move on.
Please don't be condescending. I am fully aware of the issue with ivory as I am with Brazilian Rosewood. I do not condone the harvest of either. However, the question is one of using old stock. That elephant is tragically dead. Those trees, that used to live before all the unused timber harvested from 30-50 years ago and which is now sitting on luthiers shelves, are dead.
I don't hold the view it is better to destroy that ivory or burn that wood. Frankly, as a resource from this finite planet of ours, I'd rather see it all used. That is the moral question in my view and maybe we have different perspectives on that. Entirely understandable we may.
As for legality, I would not ask a member here to break a law. However, I think legislators should be given credit for drafting laws they intended. Bob can apparently sell as much ivory as he has in stock to anybody in Georgia. Frankly I don't know why he cannot ship it outside the state nor do I know why the limit on shipment is the state boundaries. I also don't know whether the law applies to corporations, individual traders or to all persons. If they had truly wished to stop sale of all ivory, including old stocks, they could have easily legislated that instead.
I am happy to change my position if their is somebody here who knows and can explain the scope, application and legislative intent of the law in Georgia.
However, to criticise my position based on the conflation of your values on another persons (legislator's) laws does not change my view it is better to use this material for some purpose than to not.