[pianotech] Ivory Laws

[Joseph Giandalone]

Mark,

You put this beautifully, and I couldn't agree with you more completely !

It always was, at all times in History, WRONG to slaughter these creatures so that their two front teeth could contribute to minor amusements for humans. And this is the kind of hubris and arrogance that is destroying our planet. Ivory is a fetish, and I've called it so in the past (and been roundly ridiculed in this forum for advocating the "waste" of what ivory has already been "harvested" – and for ignoring the wonderful laws that provide for the sale of confiscated poached ivory and use the proceeds to extend protections against such poaching. HAH.)

The consistent way to advocate for protection of the source animals from poaching is to reject the fatuous idea that Real Ivory makes a piano in any way more desirable as an instrument. Or that the Ivory Trade was EVER anything but a brutish, disgraceful exercise for all concerned in every segment of it. Seriously: do some reading up on it if you dare; it was, in its heyday, a massive disgrace to the human race.

Nobody ever asked the elephants if it was OK with them to take their 2 front teeth and brutally murder them in the bargain. Remember folks: these are among the most intelligent animals on earth; they are very family-oriented, and they mourn their dead. I'd like to say to some of the folks on the "other side" of this issue: a leather-crafting friend of mine tells me that the human scrotum makes a very fine wallet . . . any of you gents mind if we help ourselves to a little raw material ??

Joseph Giandalone
Conway, MA


On May 4, 2012, at 12:17 PM, Mark Dierauf wrote:

> Paul -
> 
> Of course I realize that you are not advocating the slaughter of elephants to provide new material for covering piano keys (or any other reason). But we as piano techs often (virtually always, in my experience) praise this material for various reasons, and that is the problem. As long as ivory is prized for whatever reason there will be a market for it and these animals will be pushed ever closer to extinction. You say near the end of your post that we should not do anything that encourages the killing of elephants. I believe that whenever we talk about "a beautiful set of ivories" we are doing just that, even though that is certainly not our intention. Like it or not, we are part of the problem.
> 
> I used to think that confiscated poached ivory could be sold and the proceeds used to fund anti-poaching efforts. That was tried, and it only served to further increase the value of tusks in a part of the world where money is scarce and life is cheap. More and more I think that it all belongs in museums only, and that we as a society can either choose to be inconvenienced by regulation or watch passively as these (and other) animals disappear forever. Before you (not you specifically, Paul, but anyone reading this) take issue with my use of the word "inconvenienced" in speaking of regulations that can often seem heavy-handed, I would refer you back to my original post - "Tell that to the elephants".
> 
> Respectfully,
> 
> - Mark
> 
> On 5/4/2012 8:32 AM, paul bruesch wrote:
>> Whoa. That photo is repulsive and uncalled for. I am absolutely NOT suggesting that we should continue to "produce" new ivory. This thread is about selling a piano with key covers made from animals that have long since been "harvested". The gist of it is that no one who owns a piano in California can sell it if it happens to have ivory key covers. Instead, they need to have those ivory covers removed and replaced with plastic. Do you know what plastic production looks like? Ulimately, it may not be quite as hideous as your graphic photo of the slaughtered elephant, but it ain't pretty either. Who gains anything besides the technician recovering the keys?
>> 
>> I completely agree with the current US ban. We absolutely should not do anything that encourages further killing of these enormous, beautiful beasts.
>> 
>> I think this post should remove any doubt as to my viewpoint in this matter. I will not respond to it any more.
>> 
>> Note that the use of double-quotes in the first paragraph is to denote the use of popular euphemisms typically used to soften the tone of this sort of practice.
>> 
>> Paul Bruesch
>> Stillwater, MN
>