Interstate sales of ivory banned.

[David King]

Just a heads up in case you haven't heard. Rules regarding the trade of Ivory in the US have been tightened up significantly as of a couple of days ago.
I'm still looking for the new rules on-line, maybe someone here knows where to look for that?

OK I found this statement on the White house website:
"To begin implementing these new controls, federal Departments and Agencies will immediately undertake administrative actions to:

Prohibit Commercial Import of African Elephant Ivory: All commercial imports of African elephant ivory, including antiques, will be prohibited.

Prohibit Commercial Export of Elephant Ivory: All commercial exports will be prohibited, except for bona fide antiques, certain noncommercial items, and in exceptional circumstances permitted under the Endangered Species Act.

Significantly Restrict Domestic Resale of Elephant Ivory: We will finalize a proposed rule that will reaffirm and clarify that sales across state lines are prohibited, except for bona fide antiques, and will prohibit sales within a state unless the seller can demonstrate an item was lawfully imported prior to 1990 for African elephants and 1975 for Asian elephants, or under an exemption document.

Clarify the Definition of “Antique”: To qualify as an antique, an item must be more than 100 years old and meet other requirements under the Endangered Species Act. The onus will now fall on the importer, exporter, or seller to demonstrate that an item meets these criteria.

Restore Endangered Species Act Protection for African Elephants: We will revoke a previous Fish and Wildlife Service special rule that had relaxed Endangered Species Act restrictions on African elephant ivory trade.

Support Limited Sport-hunting of African Elephants: We will limit the number of African elephant sport-hunted trophies that an individual can import to two per hunter per year."

[Barry Daniels]

Can't buy an ivory nut but you can kill two elephants?

[Clay Schaeffer]

Every year.

[David King]

Just get your wallets out. Reminds me of that Monty Python skit: Upperclass twit of the year awards.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TSqkdcT25ss

[John E Giarrizzo]

Good video --- but at first I was a little confused --- thought I was watching a current political news story.

The more they try to fix things, the more messed up it gets.

(Charlie --- hope I haven't broken any posting rule here)

[Clay Schaeffer]

I think the take away from this is not to use elephant ivory on instruments you intend to sell. Selling and trading old instruments with ivory fittings might become problematic also for people who deal in them. As resources dwindle greater "protections" will be put in place. How effective they are remains to be seen, but at least some effort is being made.

[John E Giarrizzo]

I think the take away from this is not to use elephant ivory on instruments you intend to sell.

Agreed.

"If I knew then what I know now"

I am seriously considering replacing the pieces of ivory I used in a couple of instruments. I don't plan on selling any of them, but who knows where these instruments will eventually travel to. I've read horror stories of unqualified customs agents burning priceless instruments after coming to an unscientific spot determination of material. And not only ivory, but "exotic" woods. What recourse does one have if they were incorrect? Where's the evidence? --- a pile of ashes.

As usual, the cure just adds to the problem, and will not stop the greed and corruption.

I still have a couple of legally purchased pieces of ivory. I plan on NOT using them for anything.

[Mario Proulx]

For instrument builders, this is pretty simple; if you've been using ivory, stop, and use bone instead. Pretty simple, really.... Since 99% of what I make has to cross the border into the US, I've never used ivory, so this new law doesn't really affect me, and I would suspect most of us are in the same boat.

The problem lies in the hundreds of thousands of older, but not near antique, instruments that already exist and are sold or shipped across state lines and even international borders every day. Martin guitars, for example, used ivory nuts well into the 70's on all instruments, and there's a healthy amount of buying and selling of these guitars happening all the time. And I bet most of their owners don't even know that there's ivory involved, nor about these laws, which means a LOT of completely innocent and otherwise lawful persons will be at great risk.

And as others have pointed out, none of that will change the greed that drives the real problem...

[Michael Lewis]

When something is made illegal it often moves to a black market and the price usually goes significantly higher because of the added risk involved in dealing with it. Supply and demand.

[Mario Proulx]

Yup...

[Jason Rodgers]

I don't see this conversation getting out of hand, but a similar discussion over the OLF apparently sparked something of a kerfuffle that led to folks getting kicked out and banned!

[Mario Proulx]

Typical for the OLF... There's a handful of overly emotional regulars there that way too often take threads off into unnecessary directions...

[David King]

Well presumably as the price goes up at least fewer North Americans will be interested in using ivory.
Unfortunately it IS the high price that seems to be driving the demand for ivory among China's new middle and upper class. It's too bad that they don't take a similar interest in current, luthier made guitars from the West. Maybe if we all raised our prices ten-fold that would get their attention and stoke their interest in the exclusivity of our wares. Of course we'd need to reduce the supply to a trickle.

[Clay Schaeffer]

" It's too bad that they don't take a similar interest in current, luthier made guitars from the West. Maybe if we all raised our prices ten-fold that would get their attention and stoke their interest in the exclusivity of our wares. Of course we'd need to reduce the supply to a trickle."

How? Shooting and poisoning luthiers might not go over too well either.

[Rodger Knox]

I still have a couple of legally purchased pieces of ivory. I plan on NOT using them for anything.

If I understand the legislation, if you DO use them, they would not longer be legal, since they were "produced" after the ban.

[Chuck Erikson]

The OLF now has an active thread on the subject. To keep things based in facts, here are links to statements from the White House and the USFWS regarding the ivory situation:

The Feb. 11, 2014, White House announcement: http://wh.gov/lQOCs.

The above announcement includes a sub-link to the full text of the National Strategy for Combating Wildlife Trafficking & Commercial Ban on Trade in Elephant Ivory: http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default ... icking.pdf.

A United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) Q&A on proposed new regulations: http://www.fws.gov/wildlife-trafficking ... swers.html.

Another USFWS Q&A: http://www.fws.gov/international/travel ... swers.html.

The last Q&A also contains sub-headings for “Musicians and musical instrument manufacturers”: http://www.fws.gov/international/travel ... ers.html#7, and for “Antique Dealers”: http://www.fws.gov/international/travel ... ers.html#2.

Some states are also introducing proposed bans (which can be tougher than federal regulations but not less restrictive or in conflict), and it's almost certain that other states will be joining in. Here are the ones from New York and Hawaii:

New York: http://assembly.state.ny.us/mem/?ad=011 ... tory=56115.

Hawaii: http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/measure_i ... &year=2014.

Here's an article in New York Times praising the U.S. ban on all legal antique ivory:
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/18/opini ... =eta1&_r=0

And another article in Forbes opposing the U.S. ban on all legal antique ivory: http://www.forbes.com/sites/dougbandow/ ... eased-risk

This article in The Guardian (UK) has Prince William advocating destruction of the Royal Palace ivory collection:
http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014 ... -destroyed

Please remember to keep partisan political comments out of this thread, as it's an important one to keep alive. The topics are by definition unavoidably "political" in nature, because these laws are enacted by politicians. But they have little to do with party politics as such, and more to do with legislative, administrative, departmental, and enforcement issues (and possible adjustments). Thanks for keeping it civil!

[Chuck Erikson]

Regarding the allowed import of elephant hunt trophies:

We need to be careful about oversimplifying these issues. The allowed import trophies are from elephants that will be taken legally and the considerable money spent on these permits and hunts does 2 things: 1) it provides funding for very real anti-poaching and conservation/sustainability programs in the host country; 2) it provides much needed major income as well as protein (meat) for entire subsistence level villages.

There are 2 types of hunt permits: the more expensive “trophy permit” which grants ownership of the animal to the hunter, allowing him to keep trophies such as tusk or leather or any other parts (with the tons of meat usually going to the locals); and another “own/use permit” at about half the price in which all the hunter gets are photos and the experience (and the tail), with all meat and leather going to the local villagers and the tusks going to wildlife authorities. These hunts are supported by wildlife conservation groups monitoring the area, most especially in Namibia which has a proven and highly regarded record with their management programs and funding practices.

Elephants in Botswana are running out of browsing habitat mainly because of deforestation. One animal eats about 400 pounds of forage per day, and will walk up to 25 miles to get its daily 50 gallons of water. With forage quickly disappearing how long will it be before they’re forced to travel beyond their current range? If they need to swim across the Chobe River to forage in Namibia, that country will need to either raise its hunting quotas or just let animals begin starving.

These hunts are very limited in number, and extremely expensive. But precisely because of their expense they generate vastly more conservation and tribal funding than any much cheaper eco-tourist or "photo safari" visits do. So, there won't be thousands of elephants being hunted with unlimited tons of tusks entering the U.S. under the ivory ban exemption clause.

If money from legal hunts dries up, villagers will almost certainly convert elephant habitat into more farmland, making conservation impossible.

As counter-intuitive as it might seem, there are solid arguments for continuing to allow legally taken and fully papered trophy tusks into the U.S.

[Chuck Erikson]

Regarding enforcement and impact on instruments and antiques:

There's been no enforcement only because these are only proposed regulations, and not yet enacted. At present, African ivory remains legal to buy, sell, use, and transport inside the U.S. But once these laws are approved, the USFWS has vowed to be aggressive about clamping down on all domestic commercial ivory transactions or movements. It remains to be seen if these rules will even be consistently enforceable, since USFWS funding and personnel are in short supply.

As for ivory's functional necessity in musical instruments, it's not so much a problem with being needed (and it isn’t) for new production as with the presence of ivory on existing vintage instruments. Up until the early 1900’s these very often have ivory veneers, keys, binding, inlays, bridges, bridge pins, nuts, saddles, tailpieces, tuner knobs, and other ornaments. Well into the 1970's stringed instruments with ivory nuts and saddles were ubiquitous. Nuts, saddles, and other readily accessible parts can be easily replaced, but in order to be legal this would need to be done before an instrument is bought or sold. With the earlier instruments, removing all ivory will be a major expense such alterations will destroy much of their historical value.

An ivory violin bow tip weighs about a gram. Bow makers may use an ounce or so of ivory per year. Bone is brittle and porous, and absorbs oil used in French polishing the stick, breaking down the glue bond, so is not a good substitute. The impact of all bow makers in North America is probably a couple of pounds a year, with a few dozen makers relying on very small amounts of pre-1990 ivory for restorations and very limited production. Are they supposed to go back and re-tip all their bows in stock, as well as all past production that's in use?

There are also countless antiques containing various amounts of ivory, but for most of these the involved process of getting appraisals/documentation and applying for federal exemption status will be highly problematic (or impossible) and prohibitively expensive.

The bottom line is that antique ivory in the U.S. (or anywhere else) has not been significantly linked to the contraband market, and it has not been demonstrated that banning legal ivory will save even a single animal. In fact, it can be strongly argued that such a ban will increase the value of ivory and encourage further poaching. The problem isn't pre-ban or antique material, it's African poaching and international markets in China, Vietnam, Thailand, the Philippines, Italy, Japan, and other countries, all of which use vastly more ivory than the tiny amount in the U.S.

[Chuck Erikson]

Here are new releases from USFWS about the ivory bans.

The Feb. 25, 2014, USFWS Director’s Order 2010, showing how agents will enforce the standing 1989 ban and what exceptions are allowed: http://www.fws.gov/policy/do210.html.

The above Director’s Order 2010 includes a sub-link to its Appendix 1, “Guidance on the Antique Exception under the Endangered Species Act (ESA): http://www.fws.gov/policy/do210A1.pdf

[David King]

Thank you Chuck for keeping us all up to date on this as it develops. You've done an amazing job with these summaries.
I'm hoping that some biomedical wunderkind with come up with a way to grow artificial ivory in a lab using stem cells and glucose. It would have to fluoresce under black light to be easily identified from the natural stuff.

I can see how bows are going to be a problem, I hadn't thought about that before.
I'd be willing to replace any ivory acoustic nut with a bone nut for free if these rules go into effect.