# Is elephant leather unethical?



## Spareribs

I see on ebay that elephant leather products are cheap. For example, this elephant wallet is only $9.99. I find this suprising.

Black Elephant Skin Leather Bifolds Men's Wallet - (eBay item 270197657658 end time Dec-25-07 20:10:25 PST)

 The thing is, aren't elephants an endangered species? Wouldn't this be unethical?


----------



## SuperNothing

Only if you don't roast the meat and eat it medium rare and then proceed to use every part of the elephants body. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





 But in all seriousness I doubt that that is real Elephants leather. If it is probably illegal to purchase would be, as you stated, highly unethical.


----------



## XxATOLxX

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Spareribs* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I see on ebay that elephant leather products are cheap. For example, this elephant wallet is only $9.99. I find this suprising.

Black Elephant Skin Leather Bifolds Men's Wallet - (eBay item 270197657658 end time Dec-25-07 20:10:25 PST)

 The thing is, aren't elephants an endangered species? Wouldn't this be unethical?_

 

I don't see anything wrong with elephant leather. That wallet probably isn't elephant leather though, the price is too low.


----------



## Uncle Erik

That smiling elephant logo is kinda disturbing, don't you think?

 A few quick searches only turned up info on the ivory ban, but nothing on a ban for leather or meat.

 Still, elephants are largely endangered. And it's not like you really _need_ a wallet made from elephant hide. There are plenty of other leathers available, as well as cloth and synthetic wallets.

 I wouldn't buy one. I don't see any reason to support trade of an endangered animal, especially when there are so many substitutes.


----------



## Bizzel

It's only unethical from the elephant's point of view.


----------



## bhd812

if you don't think regular leather (cow grown) is bad then there should be nothing wrong with any other leather out there. 

 if you do think regular leather is bad and/or if your against the whole idea of any animal leather then yes. yes elephant leather is unethical.

 I personally own shoes/products from a variety of animals that had a heart beat sometime in the past. Ostrich, Alligator, Crocodile, Deer, Sting Ray, oh..and cow's (young and old) to name most of them Dead animals so i guess i would not have a problem with elephant leather either.

 speaking of which..
 can you find me a nice Italian made pair of loafers in elephant leather?
 pending on the brand and style i might be up for such a pair....


----------



## xenithon

Living in Africa and being extremely fond of wildlife, this is something quite close to my heart. As mentioned above though - the ban is on ivory, for the reason that elephants are hunted and needlessly slaughtered for their tusks.

 The hide, however, is another issue. I cannot claim to know much but do know that the elephants in South Africa are not endangered (I believe there are some species in India and Asia that are); and they are often culled- that is, purposefully killed. 

 That is essentially the purposeful selection and killing of animals within a population (e.g. a wildlife park such as the Kruger National park). This is highly controlled and restricted, and done so due to the elephant's destructive nature in terms of its own environment. Within a wildlife park, overpopulation can easily occur (no natural predators for the elephant either than man) resulting in a destroyed ecosystem for the rest of the wildlife in the park. The aim is thus to bring about balance and homeostatis in the population.

 The result of this culling is often used for the likes of leathers and other products for human consumption. I would be lying if I knew whether the ivory from culling is allowed or if it is destroyed.


----------



## Aevum

the big differance between lather from one animal to another and how "ethical" it is to use would basicly be the use of the rest of the animal

 a cow, the leather is worn and the meat is consumed, so most of the animal is put to good use, and the animal is breed for that purpose, 

 but a wild elephant, there are not elephant farms, a wild elephant is caught, the tusks are taken and the elephant are skinned, the rest of the elephant is discarted, thats what makes is less ethical, 
 1)its a wild animal,
 2)most of the animal is discarted, 

 now, if you set up a elephant farm and promote the consumption of elephant meat, the story would be different,


----------



## IceClass

Generally speaking the elephants are not endangerered and , no, it is NOT unethical to use the skins of wild animals over farmed equivalents.
 A preference for "farmed" animals is cultural and is not based on farming being "ethically" superior to wild harvesting. I find that ecologically simpleminded as well as untenable.

 The only thing that counts is whether or not the take is sustainable.
 Ethics are not universal and what is considered a usable species from region to another changes.

 As for the whole use of the animal canard, just think how "efficiencies" in farming led to mad cow disease.

 I would however be most surprised if that wallet was genuine elephant leather.

 Now I would be much more impressed if Head-Fiers were discussing the ethics of using the materials in their phones and components.


----------



## Arainach

Quote:


 if you don't think regular leather (cow grown) is bad then there should be nothing wrong with any other leather out there. 
 

There's a logical fallacy if I ever heard one.

 Taken from another angle, if you think a standard pornographic movie is acceptable, there should be nothing wrong with any sort of extreme or child pornography. Or if there's nothing wrong with the US having nuclear weapons, there should be no problem with any nation having them. Quote:


 Generally speaking the elephants are not endangerered 
 

Also wrong. Elephants are protected in virtually every country where they exist; African elephants, for instance, were once in the millions but now number less than 500,000.


----------



## IceClass

I think if we're down to dragging child **** and nukes into the argument then we've strayed a long ways from anything to do with conservation and we've created another fallacy.

 Just because a species is "protected" does not mean that a take from the population is not feasible or even desirable (as has been pointed out already with respect to park management in the southern range states).

 Allowing a small market for elephant products such as leather, hair and yes, even ivory can benefit the human communities who actually have to share their living space with these creatures and whose voice is more often drowned out by the big money western animal protest industry.


----------



## Lazarus Short

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *IceClass* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I think if we're down to dragging child **** and nukes into the argument then we've strayed a long ways from anything to do with conservation and we've created another fallacy.

 Just because a species is "protected" does not mean that a take from the population is not feasible or even desirable (as has been pointed out already with respect to park management in the southern range states).

 Allowing a small market for elephant products such as leather, hair and yes, even ivory can benefit the human communities who actually have to share their living space with these creatures and whose voice is more often drowned out by the big money western animal protest industry._

 

I agree. The policy of total, absolute protection of wildlife has been a disaster. In the wild, the "balance of nature" is dynamic, and involves the constant birth and death of plants and animals. Man has gone overboard and wiped whole species off the map, but going 180 degrees the other way is not the solution. We humans with our value judgments, see a de-tusked, skinned, abandoned carcass as a waste, but we tend to forget that nature is totally equipped to deal with it. Scavengers need to eat too, it's what they're for. Nothing, after all, goes to waste excepting the very life of the animal. 

 I was driving north of here yesterday, to go for a hike in a wilderness marsh, and observed several hawks perched in trees along the highway. I guessed they were hungry, and keeping an eye out for possible road kill. Had I had a car load of bunnies, I would have chucked one out the car window for each hawk I saw. No regret.

 Laz


----------



## bigshot

Just FYI... "Elephant leather" wallets are generally cowhide with an elephant skin texture pressed into them.

 See ya
 Steve


----------



## penguindude

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Lazarus Short* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I agree. The policy of total, absolute protection of wildlife has been a disaster. In the wild, the "balance of nature" is dynamic, and involves the constant birth and death of plants and animals. Man has gone overboard and wiped whole species off the map, but going 180 degrees the other way is not the solution. We humans with our value judgments, see a de-tusked, skinned, abandoned carcass as a waste, but we tend to forget that nature is totally equipped to deal with it. Scavengers need to eat too, it's what they're for. Nothing, after all, goes to waste excepting the very life of the animal. 

 I was driving north of here yesterday, to go for a hike in a wilderness marsh, and observed several hawks perched in trees along the highway. I guessed they were hungry, and keeping an eye out for possible road kill. Had I had a car load of bunnies, I would have chucked one out the car window for each hawk I saw. No regret.

 Laz_

 

 Quote:


  Originally Posted by *IceClass* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I think if we're down to dragging child **** and nukes into the argument then we've strayed a long ways from anything to do with conservation and we've created another fallacy.

 Just because a species is "protected" does not mean that a take from the population is not feasible or even desirable (as has been pointed out already with respect to park management in the southern range states).

 Allowing a small market for elephant products such as leather, hair and yes, even ivory can benefit the human communities who actually have to share their living space with these creatures and whose voice is more often drowned out by the big money western animal protest industry._

 

You missed the point of "western aniaml protest industry"; you missed the idea behind the ban on ivory; and you're also misinformed about the ethical issues regarding luxury products such as this "elephant wallet." The point is not whether natives can hunt down and use wild species' parts as their survival needs, such as clothing and food (as originally intended). The point is because of Western countries' overconsumption, we're driving our wants over our needs, and shifting this burden onto animals and wild species. 

 I do not see any ethical issue regarding natives hunting down animals and fully using their body parts as living necessities, in fact, if they don't, it'd be seen as wasteful. HOWEVER, it is another story when people are hunting down elephants and other species to create luxury products for Western's demands, and in this case, making this elephant wallet and selling it on Ebay. 

 So yes, I say the idea behind getting a full size genuine leapord jacket with panda-skin matching shoes (or in this case, an elephant-skin wallet) is quite unethical.


----------



## JonnyIce

I would say if it isn't a farmed animal, then yes, it is unethical--unless in fact you are spearing it on your own in the wild. Natural hunting, with natural weapons.


----------



## Lazarus Short

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *penguindude* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_You missed the point of "western aniaml protest industry"; you missed the idea behind the ban on ivory; and you're also misinformed about the ethical issues regarding luxury products such as this "elephant wallet." The point is not whether natives can hunt down and use wild species' parts as their survival needs, such as clothing and food (as originally intended). The point is because of Western countries' overconsumption, we're driving our wants over our needs, and shifting this burden onto animals and wild species. 

 I do not see any ethical issue regarding natives hunting down animals and fully using their body parts as living necessities, in fact, if they don't, it'd be seen as wasteful. HOWEVER, it is another story when people are hunting down elephants and other species to create luxury products for Western's demands, and in this case, making this elephant wallet and selling it on Ebay. 

 So yes, I say the idea behind getting a full size genuine leapord jacket with panda-skin matching shoes (or in this case, an elephant-skin wallet) is quite unethical._

 

I can't speak for the other guy you quoted, but I did not miss any of the points you bring up - maybe I just have a different outlook. I take a middle ground between total exploitation and total protection. I advocate both sustainable harvests and preservation of sufficient numbers of a species to preserve an intact gene pool. I am incensed at the killing of bears for their gall bladders, elephants for their ivory, fur seal pups, etc, etc, etc. There is a balance, but it is getting harder to find every year, due to human population increases and pressures for meat and land to farm. Even primitive subsistence hunting can put animals at peril if there are enough hunters. 

 Some might call the leopard jacket/panda shoes ensemble a red herring, but I get the point. I think what you want to say is that people need to get their heads screwed on straight, and refine their value systems.

 PS, this might cheer your heart - in Siberia the current thaw is uncovering lots of Mastodon ivory. It might take some of the pressure off living Elephants.

 Laz


----------



## Luminette

Elephant leather would be as unethical as Cow leather

 That the species is endangered adds a brand new layer of violation

 I find any use of animal like so to be unethical. Putting our convenience at a price higher than the life of something, anything, is just disgusting.

 And that's what this would be.. because.. it is just not necessary.


----------



## bigshot

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *penguindude* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I say the idea behind getting a full size genuine leapord jacket with panda-skin matching shoes (or in this case, an elephant-skin wallet) is quite unethical._

 

But they're OH SO COMFY COZY on a cold Christmas eve! Santa was good to me this year... but I spilled my wassle and I can't get the spot out of the leopard!

 See ya
 Steve


----------



## IceClass

Luminette;3564275
 
 And that's what this would be.. because.. it is just not necessary.[/QUOTE said:
			
		

> *Yawn*
> But your headphones are necessary, right?


----------



## Ice Nine

Anybody interested in my custom made Grados? They have all ivory cups and the headband is genuine elephant leather and not that pressed cow leather stuff.


----------



## immtbiker

Description-

 Material : Cow Leather(Elephant Print)


----------



## Rock&Roll Ninja

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *penguindude* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_The point is because of Western countries' overconsumption, we're driving our wants over our needs, and shifting this burden onto animals and wild species._

 

"the east" decimates far more endangered species populations than "the west" does. For every Englishman who had ivory billiard balls, there are 20,000 Chinese eating tiger-junk and shark soup.


----------



## JonnyIce

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Rock&Roll Ninja* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_"the east" decimates far more endangered species populations than "the west" does. For every Englishman who had ivory billiard balls, there are 20,000 Chinese eating tiger-junk and shark soup._

 

Eating tiger-junk make me more man! Haha...it was fun watching Jeff Corwin bust a bunch of those guys


----------



## penguindude

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Rock&Roll Ninja* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_"the east" decimates far more endangered species populations than "the west" does. For every Englishman who had ivory billiard balls, there are 20,000 Chinese eating tiger-junk and shark soup._

 

If I have my history right, I believe the idea of consumerism and the onset of overconsumption is brought on by the West. Im not trying to play the blaming game here, simply stating the fact that the envrionment is being decimated by our ludicrous luxurious wants. Remember how Native Africans were being forced by colonial powers for the exploitation of their precious natural resources? The ivory trade? The rubber trade? I acknowledge the fact that overconsumption is difficult to cut back, but at least we should do it with as little harm to our environment as possible.


----------



## appophylite

Rock&Roll Ninja does have a point though. Large populations of endangered animals are often killed for reasons other than western overconsumption. Take a look at Alaska. The Natives in Alaska realize the importance of maintaining animal populations so they monitor the killing of animals very stringently. The amount of animal product available for purchase in Alaska is usually only limited to what the Natives will sell which is limited to only what can be obtained within the hunting permits for the year. But then compare that to a place like India where the Bengal tiger population is dwindling because poachers kill them primarily to sell within China which is responsible for killing all but three populations of tigers (Bengal, Siberian and, I believe, Sumatran are all that exist now) for the use of medicines and medicinal foods which are not shown to have any medicinal value, or by native Indians who venture into protected reserves to graze cattle and then kill the tigers because the tigers attack their bulls.


----------



## Luminette

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *IceClass* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_*Yawn*
 But your headphones are necessary, right?



_

 

my headphones aren't the product of a murdered animal, this is completely incomparable in terms of ethics, or, really, anything

 i am not impressed with your pseudo wit and feigned resilience and self-perceived having-a-clue-ness |:


----------



## Lazarus Short

This thread has gone on the skids. The padlock comes next.

 Laz


----------



## Luminette

what could you expect with a question, any question, pertaining to ethics?

 disagreement is the skids?


----------



## immtbiker

If you guys can keep it non-political and non-libelous, then the thread can stay active. No personal attacks, please.


----------



## penguindude

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *immtbiker* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_If you guys can keep it non-political and non-libelous, then the thread can stay active. No personal attacks, please. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 

The nature of the OP's question is one of politics, the politics of ethics. So it's kinda hard to keep it non-political.


----------



## acidbasement

Some will likely disagree here, but a huge community of scientists has all but proven (absolute proof being impossible) that every living entity on Earth is as it is as the result of evolution by natural selection - survival of the fittest, as some call it, but it's more about reproduction than survival. In other words, "we" are here because not every living being survives long enough to reproduce. If there were no death, "we" would still be a bunch of simple, self-replicating carbon-based molecules, completely incapable of having this discussion. Death is one of the most essential components of any ecosystem and any society - without it nothing we know would be recognizable. How, then, can anything, human or otherwise, me or you, have an intrinsic right to life?

 I consider myself an environmentalist, and I would never willfully purchase something made from an endangered species, but I'm pretty sure that's mostly because I like seeing them alive, not because they have any intrinsic right not to be made into silly little trinkets for our petty enjoyment.


----------



## bigshot

I think it's OK to kill another living being as long as you eat it... That way the life energy is passed on to another living being.

 Just don't let me babysit your kids.

 See ya
 Steve


----------



## Luminette

people seem to think it matters what words come after a phrase like 

 "I think it's okay to kill"

 impressively depressing


----------



## acidbasement

Come on, are we having a debate or are we just repeating opinions ad nauseum? Luminette, we know you think killing things is wrong. Now tell us why, and be logical about it, or you will not convince anyone.

 Steve, if I shoot a critter and leave it to the coyotes and maggots, does that satisfy your requirement that the life energy be passed on? I probably won't do it, but I'm curious anyway 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





 This is kind of a fun thread.


----------



## Happy Camper

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *bigshot* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I think it's OK to kill another living being as long as you eat it... That way the life energy is passed on to another living being.

 Just don't let me babysit your kids.

 See ya
 Steve_

 

Then why was daummer locked up? (Ball! Jussst a bit outside). 

 I would agree that causing the death of an animal for the purpose of making wallets is wrong. I would also think it a waste of resources to not use it. If the hides were harvested from naturally dead animals, would it be ok?


----------



## Barock

That would probably be Ok, though there's really no reason to kill elephants for wallets etc. It's just mean.


----------



## Lazarus Short

I would throw one of my Far Side books on the scanner at this point, but it only generates tiff files, which will not post here. Be that as it may, the cartoon shows an elephant on a crutch, one hind leg a bandaged stump. He is talking on a pay phone, and saying, "WHAT?! They turned it into a wastebasket??"

 Funny but sick.

 To address acidbasement's assertion, I'm of the minority group on how we got here. He's an oozer, I'm a zapper. I won't even debate this or discuss it further, as few things bring the padlock faster than that...

 Laz


----------



## Sheynkman

only human horn is unethical


----------



## immtbiker

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Barock* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_That would probably be Ok, though there's really no reason to kill elephants for wallets etc. It's just mean._

 

Have you read the thread and my post!!! 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 It is not from elephants, it is from *[size=medium]cows [/size]*and pressed with an elephant-like look. Hello! 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *penguindude* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_The nature of the OP's question is one of politics, the politics of ethics. So it's kinda hard to keep it non-political._

 

Politics and ethics are two entirely different issues. This thread *can *remain politic-free if people don't want it closed.

 If I go to a bank ATM and I go to make a transaction and B4 I start, the machine issues me $200, it is an ethical decision to give back to the bank, something that doesn't belong to me. It is *not *a _political _one. 
 It is also called "scruples". 
 Since a cow is bread and raised for it's meat and hide, then it's up to you whether or not you believe it's OK to support and utilize these actions. This is whether or not a government sanctions it. It is a personal belief, not a political one.

 Also, please don't bring religious beliefs into this. 

 Politics and religion cause huge "un-win-able" arguements on Head-Fi and are against the *TOU*.


----------



## acidbasement

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *immtbiker* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Have you read the thread and my post!!! 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 It is not from elephants, it is from *[size=medium]cows [/size]*and pressed with an elephant-like look. Hello! 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 ...


 Also, please don't bring religious beliefs into this. 

 Politics and religion cause huge "un-win-able" arguements on Head-Fi and are against the *TOU*._

 

Well of course we all know the thread got off topic, don't we? I thought we were just playin' around by this point. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 Anyway, it seems that many philosophical and ethical discussions end up unresolved due to differences in fundamental assumptions - granted this is often due to differences in religion. I don't know how we can have philosophical arguments without returning eventually to these assumptions - not to argue about whose are best, but simply to acknowledge that they form the basis of our ethics, and perhaps to realize that we might have beliefs about what's right and wrong that do not flow logically from them.


----------



## kpeezy

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *acidbasement* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Some will likely disagree here, but a huge community of scientists has all but proven (absolute proof being impossible) that every living entity on Earth is as it is as the result of evolution by natural selection - survival of the fittest, as some call it, but it's more about reproduction than survival. In other words, "we" are here because not every living being survives long enough to reproduce. If there were no death, "we" would still be a bunch of simple, self-replicating carbon-based molecules, completely incapable of having this discussion. Death is one of the most essential components of any ecosystem and any society - without it nothing we know would be recognizable. How, then, can anything, human or otherwise, me or you, have an intrinsic right to life?

 I consider myself an environmentalist, and I would never willfully purchase something made from an endangered species, but I'm pretty sure that's mostly because I like seeing them alive, not because they have any intrinsic right not to be made into silly little trinkets for our petty enjoyment._

 

This is exactly how I feel about this issue. 

  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *acidbasement* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Come on, are we having a debate or are we just repeating opinions ad nauseum? Luminette, we know you think killing things is wrong. Now tell us why, and be logical about it, or you will not convince anyone.

 Steve, if I shoot a critter and leave it to the coyotes and maggots, does that satisfy your requirement that the life energy be passed on? I probably won't do it, but I'm curious anyway 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 This is kind of a fun thread._

 

*Word.* TWO quotes from you! You are too good, my friend.

 AAAAAND I'm done posting in this ethical thread. I'll laugh at you all from the sidelines.


----------



## penguindude

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *immtbiker* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Have you read the thread and my post!!! 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 It is not from elephants, it is from *[size=medium]cows [/size]*and pressed with an elephant-like look. Hello! 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	






 Politics and ethics are two entirely different issues. This thread *can *remain politic-free if people don't want it closed.

 If I go to a bank ATM and I go to make a transaction and B4 I start, the machine issues me $200, it is an ethical decision to give back to the bank, something that doesn't belong to me. It is *not *a political one. 
 It is also called "scruples". 
 Since a cow is bread and raised for it's meat and hide, then it's up to you whether or not you believe it's OK to support and utilize these actions. This is whether or not a government sanctions it. It is a personal belief, not a political one.

 Also, please don't bring religious beliefs into this. 

 Politics and religion cause huge "un-win-able" arguements on Head-Fi and are against the *TOU*._

 

This is rather disturbing on how mods are trying to dictate what we're discussing on an open forum - a place where people are supposedly free to express their views. I don't see why we cannot discuss politics while we are allowed to discuss ethics. We are neither using vulgar and disrespectful language nor are we resorting to petty personal attacks. I do not see a reason for you to lock this thread down. But if you wish, be my guest and go right ahead. If you are trying to unreasonably dictate what I can say, I'd rather not say it at all.


----------



## Samgotit

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *penguindude* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_This is rather disturbing on how mods are trying to dictate what we're discussing on an open forum - a place where people are supposedly free to express their views. I don't see why we cannot discuss politics while we are allowed to discuss ethics. We are neither using vulgar and disrespectful language nor are we resorting to petty personal attacks. I do not see a reason for you to lock this thread down. But if you wish, be my guest and go right ahead. If you are trying to unreasonably dictate what I can say, I'd rather not say it at all._

 

This sticky has been there since 2005. If you don't like the rules, why did you register?

http://www.head-fi.org/forums/f11/no...llowed-244685/


----------



## bigshot

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Happy Camper* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_If the hides were harvested from naturally dead animals, would it be ok?_

 

All the ebay seller needs to do is add this simple explanation...

 The elephant used to make this wallet was not needlessly butchered for commercial reasons. You'll be happy to know that he died in a freak waterskiing accident.

 See ya
 Steve


----------



## immtbiker

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *penguindude* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_This is rather disturbing on how mods are trying to dictate what we're discussing on an open forum...
 ... I do not see a reason for you to lock this thread down. But if you wish, be my guest and go right ahead. If you are trying to unreasonably dictate what I can say, I'd rather not say it at all._

 

First of all, I am not locking it down, I am being a mod and pointing out that (and I'll repeat):

 Politics and religion cause huge "un-win-able" arguements on Head-Fi and are against the TOU.

 Second of all, if I am (_in your words_) "trying to unreasonably dictate what I can say, I'd rather not say it at all" then why did you just say it, if you'd rather not say it at all. That is a contradiction of your own terms.

 Usually, most forum rules are a result of previously unmanageable situations.

 That, and the fact that this is an *audio *forum.
 I'm sure there are plenty of *other *forums where you can talk about the politics of faux elephant skin products without being stiffled in your expressions.


----------



## Coalminingjim

My dad was in Vietnam and got an Elephant hide wallet that is actually Elephant hide.


----------



## meyner

are all specifies of elephants considered endangered?


----------



## proton007

Quote: 





coalminingjim said:


> My dad was in Vietnam and got an Elephant hide wallet that is actually Elephant hide.


 
   
  Way to go, reviving a 6 year old thread.


----------



## Happy Camper

bigshot said:


> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Steve, I just read your response. Love it.


----------



## Orkboy

proton007 said:


> Way to go, reviving a 6 year old thread.




Can I just ask, what is wrong with reviving old threads? If a user has something to contribute, but the relevant thread is old, why is it then considered out of bounds? Should the user just make a whole new thread even though there's a nice discussed one already made? Or should he just give up entirely? 

I think there's no way you can justify elephant leather being sold in the modern market. The volume of produce you'd need to satisfy demand would end in an extinct species very quickly. It's not about long curly haired hippy types whining about animal rights, it's about not being a sustainable practice. There's enough cows for everybody and their grandmother to have a leather wallet. There aren't that many elephants, and you can't replace the ones you kill fast enough.


----------



## proton007

Quote: 





orkboy said:


> Can I just ask, what is wrong with reviving old threads? If a user has something to contribute, but the relevant thread is old, why is it then considered out of bounds? Should the user just make a whole new thread even though there's a nice discussed one already made? Or should he just give up entirely?


 
   
  Usually, it means that the discussion has concluded a long time back. A couple of months is one thing, 5+ years old is totally another. There's no use in 'contributing' if the last contribution was a few years ago. The posters and contributors have most probably forgotten the thread and moved on.
   
  Threads that are popular stay afloat, the less interesting ones gradually trickle down into obscurity. Someone posting a one line reply in such an obscure thread puts it back on top with the rest of the active threads; its like saying "this X year old thread is more important than the current ones". Its just bad etiquette.
   
  If you really want to discuss a topic, you feel that the problem hasn't been discussed well enough, and the last one is a few years old, its better to create a new thread because its has a current context. People feel more involved commenting on active threads rather than zombie threads.


----------



## bigshot

It's worth reviving this thread just so Happy Camper can see my water skiing joke.


----------



## Happy Camper

bigshot said:


> It's worth reviving this thread just so Happy Camper can see my water skiing joke.


Certainly was.


----------



## arnesto

Good question.
   
  If you ask a cow, he will probably say it's unethical.
   
  If you ask a guy who likes to eat hamburgers, he will probably say it is ethical.


----------



## Kezza Kat

Re: Elephant Leather.
  
  
 Hope this article from an article on EBay's 'Exotic Skin Leather, Wallets, Belts, Handbags, Briefcases'  clears up any confusion.
  
Elephant Leather 
 Elephant leather was originally made using the skins of elephants. Preferred for the unique deep pattern of the skin; it was both stronger and softer than conventional cow leather. The hides could be dyed to almost any color and held the dye much better than cow leather.
 Today only three species of elephant remain in the world, all are protected by International Law, and all are endangered to some level.
 Two species exist in Africa; the African Bush Elephant (Loxodonta africana) and the African Forest Elephant (Loxodonta cyclotis). At one time these two species were believed even to be one, but today most experts acknowledge them as separate. The third species is the Asiatic (Asian) Elephant (Elephas maximus).
 In Africa some countries still allow limited harvesting of some elephants but it is strictly controlled. Ivory sales run by the Government happen about every ten years.  In Asia all elephants are looked upon as protected.
 Today elephants have become a national symbol and treasure here in Thailand. The Thai Artesian families that have produce elephant leather for hundreds of years have developed new processes to transform normal cow hides into a product that looks like, and has all the qualities of natural elephant leather.
 Today there is no reason to use elephants to produce this leather. The leather hides used to product elephant leather comes from legal sources and not from endangered or threatened animals. The new replacement products are made from Bos taurus indicus, (bovine) and has become the world standard. These processed leathers have gone through unique methods of tanning, embossing, and treatment making it the finest of its type offered in the world


----------



## Elephantnelly

So I see allot of people on here that are your typical; we are people so we are better stand point.
  
 Lets start at the beginning.
  
 When you harm something or kill something for yourself you get a bad feeling. Most people do. People that do not are generally trained in such actions or have certain mental issues. 
  
 So if you believe in god or science; this feeling in its self is a guide. 
  
 Everyone has their own moral compass, someone who knows its wrong and chooses to do it any way is a bad person. Someone who truly believes it is ok, then it is ok. 
  
 So let this be a guide for you decide for your self, I think you will find the answers on your own as long as you open your mind and think. Do try to be a big man and act like you don't give a ****.
  
 Compassion and tolerance are both very important things. I think people don't pay attention to these things enough, they are to worried about telling you what other people do or have done. Instead ask yourself, is the truly right you will have the answer and it will be the right one. 
  
 And one last thing do you think intelligence dictates how much power you have over something? I doubt it, I think it gives us more responsibility to do the right thing.


----------

