I have to weigh in on an argument that has doubtless been covered
before, but needs to be raised to our active conscious level every once
in awhile.  I speak of the CITES treaty ban on ivory trade.

The basic problem here is a demand by humans for a substance most
easily supplied by killing a creature into extinction. Our love for
ivory creates an industry that threatens the existence of elephants.
The true solution is to eliminate our demand for ivory. A political
process can't do that. A treaty agreement can only raise the opposing
pressure to the point that a high price forces demand down. In the case
of ivory, that means controlling ALL traffic of ANY ivory, old or new,
in order to eliminate loopholes that corrupt traffickers can employ to
hide the injection of bogus (i.e., new) ivory. As long as ANY traffic
in ivory is permitted, there is a social escape for
having/using/displaying ivory. If it is banned, there can arise a
social stigma for employing it. Which is precisely what we need in this
case.

The Canadian government has tried to accommodate special cases, and has
wisely made it somewhat difficult. It is unfortunate that not all border
guards are aware of every bureaucratic exception to every issue they
face, but that is reality and it is understandable. It is up to the
owner of the ivory to understand the problem and take whatever steps
are necessary.

Michael J. Babcock