New Jersey Ivory ban....

[spiral]

Theres a new, total Ivory & rhino horn ban New Jersey ....it seems,

Makes illegal even the sale or transfer of antique, worked pieces.

spiral

linky (http://www.northjersey.com/news/christie-signs-ban-on-ivory-sales-purchases-1.1062584)

[asomotif]

Thank you for the information.

Amazing to read that New Jersey is a hub for smuggling to China.
Unfortunately, if you close one route, a thousand other routes still exsist and if needed, new routes will be found.

When my minds takes a free ride, I can think of a solution by controlling the trade by the african governments.
Tusks and horns can be "harvested" without slaughtering the animals and sold on the free market to the highest bidder (China).
It would eliminate the poaching business and support african economies. :shrug:

Best regards,
Willem

[drac2k]

Another solution would be to take all of the illegally poached ivory seized by the government, carve or tag a serial number on the piece where it could not be seen, register it with an agency and have them issue a certificate that the piece is 100% legal to own or trade.
Once all of the "legal ivory," floods the world, the price would be drastically driven down, making it much riskier for poachers for much less money.Take the money or a portion of it and purchase and support game reserves.
Destroying it only makes the price go up; also government bureaucrats deciding what is art, antique,or national treasures as opposed to burning the ivory reminds me of the Chinese Cultural Revolution where all art was seized, demolished and lost forever !

[spiral]

Chaps, In all honesty although valid as ideas, they arnt going to solve the problem.

You could probably sell all the ivory & rhino horn in the world tomorrow & the new markets & investors would demand more. {just thing at how much ivory the western word gut through from 1850 to 1950.}

Selling heroin to a junkie never stopped them being a junkie.:shrug: They always want more.

In truth I fear there is no solution. But banning the sale or transfer of genuine antiques in New Jersey clearly doesn't help either.


spiral

[drac2k]

I'm not sure that I would make a correlation between collecting ivory and the heinous physiological and mental addiction of heroine.
In the event that you are espousing the theory that collecting edge weapons is a compulsive behavior, then I would agree, I probably need an intervention .

[spiral]

Your correct that is a bit of a stretch... but us weapons collectors indeed ,the majority of collectors probably exhibit addictive, compulsive behaviour.

Some suggest that collecting is a modern twist on the ancient hunting instinct. :shrug:

spiral

[VANDOO]

MANKIND DEVELOPED ART AS A WAY TO SHOW OFF HIS SKILL AND PERHAPS IMPRESS THE LADIES. IF THE WORK WAS GOOD ENOUGH A DEMAND WAS CREATED FOR IT AND COMPETITION WOULD ARISE. TRADE WAS ESTABLISHED EVEN BETWEEN TRIBES THAT WERE ENEMIES IN NORTH AMERICA AND NO DOUBT OTHER PARTS OF THE WORLD. SOME TRIBES WERE BETTER AT MAKING CERTAIN SPECIALTY'S AND TOOK PRIDE IN THEIR CRAFTS. THE OTHERS COULD ONLY GET THESE ITEMS THRU TRADE OR WAR SO CERTAIN TIMES AND PLACES WERE SET ASIDE FOR SAFE TRADE BETWEEN TRIBES.
THE MAKERS OF THESE NEW IVORY LAWS ARE WELL FUNDED AND ADS ON TELEVISION AND RADIO ARE CURRENTLY RUNNING FOR DONATIONS FROM THE PUBLIC TO PURSUE THE EVIL IVORY COLLECTORS AND SELLERS IN AMERICA AND SAVE THE ELEPHANTS. IVORY COLLECTORS IN AMERICA CERTAINLY DON'T WANT TO SEE THE ELEPHANT BE KILLED OFF. BUT THE ORIENT CAN'T GET ENOUGH RAW IVORY TO SUPPLY ITS CARVING INDUSTRY. AMERICA HAS NOT IMPORTED RAW IVORY AND DOESN'T HAVE A IVORY CARVING INDUSTRY. EVERYTHING I HAVE COLLECTED PREDATES ALL LAWS AND BANS REGULATING IVORY. I NO LONGER COLLECT AND CAN NOT PASS ON THE ITEMS I HAVE HAD FOR YEARS WHAT IF ALL ETHNOGRAPHIC ART AND WEAPONS WERE REGULATED IN THE SAME WAY?
MAN HAS WORKED THE HIDES AND BONES OF THE THINGS HE HUNTED FOR THOUSANDS OF YEARS AND IVORY FROM THE MAMMOTH AND OTHER ELEPHANTS WAS USED FOR TOOLS, JEWELRY AND ART UP UNTIL THE PRESENT.
THE IDEA OF MAKING ALL ART , TOOLS OR OBJECTS MADE OF IVORY OR HORN NO MATTER WHEN OR WHERE IT CAME FROM ILLEGAL DOES NOTHING TO SAVE EVEN ONE ELEPHANT. IF EVERY PIECE OF IVORY IN AMERICA WAS GATHERED FROM MUSEUMS AND PEOPLE AND BURNED TODAY IT WOULD NOT SAVE OR BRING BACK ONE ELEPHANT BUT A LOT OF ART AND MANS HERITAGE WOULD GO UP IN SMOKE NOT TO MENTION THE LOSS OF THE MONEY COLLECTORS AND MUSEUMS SPENT COLLECTING AND PRESERVING THESE WORKS OF ART.
COLLECTORS DON'T COLLECT IVORY BECAUSE ELEPHANTS HAVE BEEN KILLED OR WITH THE DESIRE TO KILL THEM OFF. BUT BECAUSE IVORY LIKE GOLD, SILVER, GEMS AND ALL OTHER THINGS CONSIDERED BEAUTIFUL AND OF WORTH NEED TO BE CHERISHED AND APPRECIATED. SHOULD WE BURN EVERYTHING AND ALL GO BACK TO THE TREES AND BECOME GRASS EATERS AS WELL, THERE ARE THOSE WHO THINK SO. YOU CAN BE SURE THESE PEOPLE WILL NEVER BE SATISFIED UNTIL THEY MAKE EVERYONE CONFORM TO THEIR WISHES AND MANY MORE WORTHLESS ILL CONCEIVED LAWS WILL BE WRITTEN AND PASSED. :(
I AM FOR THE BANNING OF ANY NEW IVORY THAT IS NOT LEGALLY HARVESTED ( FOR INSTANCE WHEN HERDS ARE CULLED BECAUSE OF OVERPOPULATION IN SOME RESERVES OR WHEN AN ANIMAL DIES. THE MONEY THUS GENERATED COULD THEN BE USED TO CARE FOR AND PROTECT THE ELEPHANT.
BUT I THINK WE SHOULD PRESERVE OLDER EXAMPLES OF ART AND DO WHAT IS PRACTICAL. FOR INSTANCE I DON'T FEEL THE NEED TO DESTROY OR BAN ALL OLD PIANOS BECAUSE OF IVORY KEYS. :p
HERE ARE A FEW ITEMS , ARE THEY ART OR SHOULD THEY BE BURNED TO PLEASE THE WRITERS OF SILLY LAWS? THE IBIS IVORY HANDLE IS FROM ANCIENT EGYPT, THE POWDER HORN IS PORTUGUESE THERE IS AN AFRICAN BUST, A JAPANESE CARVING CIRC. 1900, CHINESE PUZZLE BALL CARVED FROM A SOLID PIECE OF IVORY 10 BALLS ALL INSIDE OF EACH OTHER. CHINESE FIGURE, TWO RHINO HORN CUPS CARVED CIRC. 17TH TO 18 CENTURY. NONE OF THESE ARE MINE BUT IT DOES GIVE SOME IDEA OF THE BEAUTY AND COMPLEXITY OF THIS ART AND ALL ARE WAY BEFORE IVORY BANS AND LAWS EXISTED. FLY WHISK HANDLE IVORY COAST AFRICA, 2 DHA HANDLES

[Rick]

This is not a particularly new thing (ivory ban) here .
It will be national in no time . The auction houses in my state always post a disclaimer about shipping to California, now they will add N.J. to the list .

Our dear leader has already spoken to this on a national level, and is busily turning works of art into ivory dust .

[Berkley]

Our dear leader has already spoken to this on a national level, and is busily turning works of art into ivory dust .
A mindset which is not restricted by state or national boundaries:

The Duke of Cambridge wants all ivory in the royal collection at Buckingham Palace to be removed and destroyed, it is reported.
Days after the duke gave his backing to a campaign against elephant poaching, the leading primatologist Jane Goodall told the Independent on Sunday Prince William had told her he would "like to see all the ivory owned by Buckingham Palace destroyed".
The royal collection contains about 1,200 artefacts dating back hundreds of years.
During the past few years, Prince Charles has reportedly asked for all ivory items at his Clarence House and Highgrove homes to be removed from sight.
The Conservative MP Zac Goldsmith applauded the duke's stance, saying: "It's difficult to imagine a stronger symbol of the horrors of ivory than Buckingham Palace publicly destroying its own. Good for Prince William for pushing this." The Guardian, Feb 17, 2014 (http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/feb/17/prince-william-buckingham-palace-)

[Rick]

Yeah, the movement seems to be world-wide . :(

[spiral]

Yes really sad if genuine antiques get destroyed... Strangely I think much was destroyed in China a few decades ago...

US is supposedly about the 4th largest user of ivory in the world... I guess due to population size & proportion of wealthy & the popular regard for hunting?

As for Zac Goldsmith applauding prince willy wanting to burn the Royal ivory collection, someone should point out its actually part of the National collection & not actually owned by the Royalty anymore... Id guess if he owned it he may be more reticent about burning it? Unless he really is dumb as well as ignorant...

I agree Rick... this is spreading & spreading fast.....will be worldwide in the so called civilised nations within 10 years at most Id guess. Maybe much sooner.

If you have nice old stuff , that you really like keep it, it may be forever, if not get rid of it before it becomes dangerous or illegal to do so.

spiral

[spiral]

As of yesterday New York has also enacted a ban....

Some slight exceptions for articles that can be proven over 100 years old & only contain small amounts of Ivory.... So I guess that save the antique Stienways & violins at least... Not so good for dealer/collectors of antique arms.

The Ban includes mammoth as well....:confused:


The NY governors new law...

linky (http://www.governor.ny.gov/press/08122014-bill-signing-ivory)

spiral

[Rick]

Mammoth ?!?!?!
Now that is the height of idiocy .
Then again, we don't want the Mammoths to go extinct, do we .... :rolleyes:

[Berkley]

we don't want the Mammoths to go extinct, do we .... :rolleyes:
Apparently not:
Woolly Mammoth Clone Is Now Possible, Say Scientists
Huffington Post Canada | By Christian Cotroneo

Posted: 03/14/2014 10:31 am EDT Updated: 03/14/2014 10:59 am EDT

Scientists now say they've got enough blood and bone to bring an Ice Age icon kicking and stomping into the modern age.

All thanks to a remarkably well-preserved mammoth found in Siberia last summer.

"The data we are about to receive will give us a high chance to clone the mammoth," Radik Khayrullin, of the Russian Association of Medical Anthropologists, told the Siberian Times.

Researchers at Russia's North-Eastern Federal University discovered the remains-- mammoth hair, soft tissues and bone marrow -- in the northeastern province of Yakutia.

During the autopsy, they were surprised to find an incredibly well preserved corpse -- better, in fact, than "a body of a human buried for six months," another scientist told the Times.

Since last summer, the scientific community has been buzzing about the possibility of breathing life back into those old bones -- or, more specifically, bringing life forth from new bones.

An elephant, as its closest living relative, would be the ideal surrogate mother for a modern-day mammoth.

The idea, as Tanya Lewis writes for LiveScience, would be to implant a mammoth embryo into an elephant, which would then give birth to a very, very old baby.
New York is just being proactive. :p

[Tim Simmons]

I think the idea is to remove the concept of ivory as a quality material. This will affect desire in the market place even for old ivory. Auction houses will not want to handle it, even pre 1947. I can see some sense in it, to kill the whole market. It may well mean that in a few years time if not now you will be stuck with an unsalable collection or collection pieces.

[spiral]

I think the idea is to remove the concept of ivory as a quality material. This will affect desire in the market place even for old ivory. Auction houses will not want to handle it, even pre 1947. I can see some sense in it, to kill the whole market. It may well mean that in a few years time if not now you will be stuck with an unsalable collection or collection pieces.

Id say ,You've got it in one Tim,

They wish ivory to be seen as horrid vile stuff, rather in the manner many women in non freezing cold areas would regard fur coats today as compared to say 40 years ago.

It would work if it happened across the board, worldwide, whether that's possible, I don't know.

It could work in the west in quite easily though I think? Given a couple of decades. Good quality antique tiger skins in auction 15 years ago in England often made double what they do usually today. And there where more for sale then.

Times are changing, I think the finest antique art works will always have an art price, The more mediocre pieces may not.

:shrug:

Either way due to current enormous worldwide {But particularily far eastern.} demand for ivory, {most made into bangles,beads,religious statues & fake antiques.} combined with the ease of corrupting humans, despite whatever laws exist & because of the time taken for change to happen, I dare say no rhino and very few Elephant will survive in the wild...in 10 years time.

spiral

[estcrh]

I have noticed recently that some sellers are describing what looks like rhino horn hilts as just horn or something besides rhino and items such as swords and knives that look like they have ivory hilts being described as having bone hilts. This may work for small items but I feel sorry for collectors of items made entirely of ivory.

[spiral]

I have noticed recently that some sellers are describing what looks like rhino horn hilts as just horn or something besides rhino and items such as swords and knives that look like they have ivory hilts being described as having bone hilts. This may work for small items but I feel sorry for collectors of items made entirely of ivory.

But that's so they can just claim ignorance.. But if they or a buyer is caught, particularly by customs if exported, I don't think that would help them much?

After all if you do something for years as your living, suddenly saying I didn't know it, is obviously a bit strange.

spiral

[drac2k]

My problem is not with the saving of exotic animals such as rhinos, elephants, etc., but with the wholesale destruction of valuable artifacts of historical, artistic and religious significance !
In N.Y., where this ban takes place, they also have a zero tolerance for the possession of guns.I have a buddy who has a friend who is a police officer whose sole duty is to destroy guns and weapons seized by the police.I couldn't care less about the destruction of illegal Tech-9s or other modern crap,but these guys destroy civil war guns, wheel locks, flintlocks, matchlocks, and any edge weapons they seize in the net as well ; they told me about a medieval 2 handed German sword they cut up and melted.I dare say as a result of this ban ,there are just as many illegally owned guns as before and they fetch a higher price; the only people affected are the law abiding citizen or the collector.
The sad truth is that by the destruction of this ivory, not a single animal will be brought back.What is next, the African shields, the snakeskin scabbards, bone or horn armor ?
I fear the real objective is not the saving of animals but more government control of our lives !

[spiral]

My problem is not with the saving of exotic animals such as rhinos, elephants, etc., but with the wholesale destruction of valuable artifacts of historical, artistic and religious significance !


Yes I agree , & I would say, hopefully no antiques will be destroyed, but of course as with the weapons you mention, if there not legally held or laws are broken in their trade, then the powers that be will destroy them, if & when they find them.

That's how it works once laws are made & enforced. :shrug:

But my point in posting this was just so members affected are aware of the law change.

Just a word to the wise.


spiral

[A. G. Maisey]

As Tim has commented in post #15, the objective of impending universal bans could be an attempt to alter public perception. However, if we consider the history of the effect of total bans upon the price and desirability of any commodity there seems to be a consistent predictable effect, and that is that when something is banned it becomes more desirable and the price rises accordingly.

An example:- during the 1970's and 1980's I regularly bought keris hilts in Jawa and Bali. At that time a wooden hilt of fine workmanship was always more expensive than an ivory hilt of ordinary quality. Ivory hilts only became more expensive when the workmanship was of a high quality. Following the introduction of ivory bans the prices of ivory hilts skyrocketed. No matter what the quality, if it was ivory, it cost more, a lot more, than even the finest work in any other material.

Examine history and we find that this is the effect of prohibition.

Where a price does not fall because of prohibition the causes can be linked to changing style, for example tiger skins. Forty and more years ago it was very fashionable to decorate one's house with parts of dead animals, mounted heads, skins as scatter rugs, elephant foot umbrella stands. It is no longer fashionable to have one's house looking like a natural history museum, thus the prices of these objects have fallen, in fact it is now often not possible to give this sort of thing away ( I speak from experience).

In a country like Australia, where I live, it is very probable that the ivory bans will bite. As in much of the rest of the developed world, Australians in general have a herd-like mentality and for the most part act in ways that our leaders want them to act. However, it can be expected that demand for all things, not only ivory, will increase in China in at least a compensating proportion to decrease in our developed countries. Total bans on ivory in developed countries will have no effect on desire or ability to purchase in China, and in some other developing countries. The elephants will continue to die.

By profession I am an auditor and risk consultant. In my profession we understand that it is not possible to protect absolutely against the occurrence of something that we do not want to occur. There is no control that cannot be circumvented.

If we do not want elephants to disappear, the risk of their disappearance must be managed, and total bans on trade in, or possession of, the desirable parts of an elephant's body will only increase desirability of those parts.

The answer to protection of elephants is to manage them as a resource. Give them a dollar value and regulate the trade, not ban it.

Regrettably politicians listen to voters and voters listen to half-baked green coloured idiots.

[spiral]

I agree with many of your observations A.G.

But other factors can also play a factor perhaps?

... Tiger skins are still worth a lot of money & are fashionable in the middle & far east, but not in the UK etc.. There still poached in India etc.

Elephants & rhino have had a dollar value for a long time, just, big game hunters, terrorists, vets , safari organisers, local military, anyone who wants some money for the cost of a couple of rounds or some poison can scupper the long term value for instant satisfaction.

As for prohibition always increasing value ... that's not always true.

When Persia collapsed the UK was flooded with high purity, very low cost heroin, because it was the easiest way to bring ones wealth out of a collapsing country.

Supply & demand help set the value & quite simply the bartering between salesmen & wealthy customers finally decides what the market will bare.

We see this in the antique arms world as well.

spiral

[A. G. Maisey]

Spiral, to address all factors involved in this matter would require extensive research and a very long and comprehensive paper. My brief contribution to this discussion is based upon generalities and current risk management practice.

Certainly, we can always argue non-conforming specific cases, and when we talk "dollar value" & "resource" definitions should ideally be given. In short, my comment is very easy to argue with and it would be an interesting exercise to engage in an ongoing debate and see just how long we could keep it going.

But I'm not going to do that. I've stated my concise opinion, and you and all others have stated, and will continue to state theirs.

The thing that I think most of us agree upon is that a total ban will accomplish nothing except the achievement of political objectives, and financial loss for those unable to find a way around the bans. One thing is for sure:- in its present form it will not protect elephants.

Supply & demand are certainly major factors in fixing the value of anything, as demonstrated very clearly by the example I provided of the rise in the price of ivory following the introduction of the early bans. As bans become wider and more intensive, it is probable that supply may decrease, which will of course raise price and desirability, but then what can we expect to happen? If history is any guide, supply will increase to fill the market gap.

Summary execution for possession of any ivory object might have some effect, most especially if such a punishment were to be introduced by China and some other developing countries. But that is not likely to happen.

Personally I think that the people who want to help the poor old jumbos would do well to have a close look at the way in which De Beers manages diamond supply.

[spiral]

Certainly A.G. it is a complex subject with many variables. I am sure it would be an interesting debate! :D

The last time a huge tonnage of African ivory was released a few years ago with cities permission, elephant poaching roared astronomically, after all a receipt saying ivory was legal, could be used again & again , as after all there is no DNA taken to match the legal document to the ivory.

I am sure De Beers, do many naughty things, many powerful international company's do. :shrug:

Sadly that wont change.

I guess the fact ivory & particularly rhino horn are a long way from an infinite supply, will have its effect as well.

As you say without harsh punishment of consumers {& I would add poachers, particularly the wealthy organised ones with helicopters etc.. & the armed militia types. & not just some hungry bloke with an old .303 who makes an easy scapegoat.} the demand will remain.

Interestingly, the countries that burn there ivory publicly in huge public piles, don't say where that ivory disappears to afterwards, when they show a photo of a pile of ashes.

After all ivory may crack a bit but it doesn't burn on an open fire, that's just the logs in the pile & a splash of accelerant....

I would like the Elephant & rhino populations to recover from where they are today.... But I don't believe in destroying antiques. That wont help anyone or anything. Its vandalism.

As for Trade bans in the west... I guess at least one can keep what ones already got. :shrug:

Will any of it really work? probably not... :o

spiral

[Sajen]

Destroying antiques in old collections would in my eyes the same what the Taliban has done in Afgahnistan with the Buddha statues from Bamiyan in 2001 and don't will help to save elephants or rhinos. Like Spiral said it's pure vandalism.

[Lee]

I have always despised laws and regulations that overreach whatever legitimate aims they have in an effort to facilitate easy, ignorant enforcement. The assault on genuine, legitimate antiques is despicable, as are the politicians who promulgate same. I find the arguments that such overreach will protect a single endangered wild animal entirely specious. I welcome well conceived and competently written laws and regulations that would protect these animals without such gratuitous overreach. I expect that these present laws and regulations will come under judicial scrutiny in the US in due course, as where they exceed legitimate aims they surely have ventured into the territory of illegal seizure.

[spiral]

Indeed Sajen pure vandalism.

I don't know enough about the US legal system to comment Lee, but from what you say this may be overturned?

If so your justice system works better than the UK... {not that that's difficult...}

I still rather think such laws will become the norm in the more advanced world. europe, US Oz etc. in time.

A law that targets current professional criminals & is properly enforced would be a better approach than turning every collector into a criminal if he passes on a genuine antique.

But I guess it easy to catch non professional or accidental criminals & pretend something efficient & meaningful is going on, to the electorate.

spiral

[estcrh]

I expect that these present laws and regulations will come under judicial scrutiny in the US in due course, as where they exceed legitimate aims they surely have ventured into the territory of illegal seizure.
Lee, as soon as a wealthy collector with influence of some kind realizes that his or her collection is in danger of being labeled as illegal / unsellable etc we will see exceptions make for antiques which contain ivory, I have no doubt.

[spiral]

Lee, as soon as a wealthy collector with influence of some kind realizes that his or her collection is in danger of being labeled as illegal / unsellable etc we will see exceptions make for antiques which contain ivory, I have no doubt.

Well that's possible, all country's have corruptible or influenced politician's.

But hopefully it takes more than one rich man to change the state of law in the land of the free? At least a couple of dozen oil magnates, net Mongols & international arms dealers of missiles & other mass expense technology of destruction id hope!:rolleyes: {Weve come a long way from a pointed stone & lumpy stick in the last 2000 years! :D }


Unsaleable shouldn't be a problem to the truly rich... they don't need to sell from there collection's & can still acquire more, even illegally if they so wish... with impunity probably, if they are so influential...

It us poorer collectors who have to decide whether to keep or sell, before laws make that decision for us. :shrug:

In truth I made my choices a few years back , when I saw which way the wind was blowing.

spiral

[Lee]

There will be the connected rich collectors and the auction houses and others in the art trade who will hire the required legal talent to deal with this absurd situation. ... I hope.

[drac2k]

I wouldn't count on it ; I think that is what all of the Indian artifact collectors were saying ! While we are waiting for them to do something, the government(s), advance their agenda. It is about control ; each incremental step they take , each erosion of personal freedom, are rights lost ,never to be regained .
Hundreds of thousands, maybe millions of Africans have died of Malaria because of the banning of DDT; it was said to have thinned the eagle eggshell.Does the math add up ? Is each eagle worth 100,00 lives? Last year the Norfolk Airport shredded 3 or 4 eagles,which it sucked through plane engines ;should we ban jets as well ? Each loss of a privilege has a "Butterfly Effect:"
"for the want of a nail a shoe was lost, for the want of a shoe, a horse was lost ............"

[spiral]

There will be the connected rich collectors and the auction houses and others in the art trade who will hire the required legal talent to deal with this absurd situation. ... I hope.

Interestingly a few years ago a big auction house in the UK kept selling whole mounted Rhino horns even when customs said they shouldn't, they stated the would win in court when it came to it, arguing about legal definitions..

Instead of taking them to court within 6 months the Government just introduced even tougher & more detailed laws that they felt unable to argue against.

spiral

[Andrew]

Indeed. :(

And yet, antique ivory is so much more common and ubiquitous than rare rhino horn...

Hope springs eternal. :shrug:

[spiral]

Indeed. :(

And yet, antique ivory is so much more common and ubiquitous than rare rhino horn...

Hope springs eternal. :shrug:

Very true Andrew, us Europeans had wiped out c.80% of them by 1920.

And there more family based creatures rather than vast herds, that elephants once were.

Then if horn not stored properly over the years, it gets the eaten by the dreaded dermistids! {& of course always being consumed in old Chinese & Indian medicine.}

But the new range of American state laws seem to be allying ivory & rhino together?

Either way, as much as I would like nature to have a chance to recover a bit, {In truth not very likely to happen. :o } I sincerely hope true antiques are not destroyed, they are part of history & in a some cases stunning & amazing works of art, as well.

I fear some will be with badly written & enforced laws though.

spiral

[David]

I see a lot of talk on this thread about destroy works of art made of ivory. Aside from this happening in China, is there any real indication that this will now happen in the USA? I don't see any such provision for confiscated ivory art in these articles, though i do know that raw tusks have been destroyed in the past. Is it likely that the US gov't will destroy these works when confiscated, or is it more likely they will turn them over to museums?

[spiral]

Good question David, in truth I don't know...

But here's some photos of the USA ivory crush last November...

Hopefully its all modern crap carved with electrical power tools, but I cant tell. :shrug:

They would certainly have to build one or two very large dedicated ivory museums I think though.... Which sounds good to me, but of course would also helps popularise ivory, which doesn't seem to be what there doing.

spiral

[David]

Thanks Spiral. Yeah, even if newly carved i'm not sure i really approve of the destruction of art, though i do understand how new ivory carvings and the demand for them drive the ivory trade. I certainly can't find any reason to approve the destruction of antique ivory objects though. Of course the problem officials face is determining what is actually old and what has been artificially aged. The whole thing really is quite an unfortunate mess all around. :(

[drac2k]

WOW...............your picture pretty much tells the whole story! It reminds me of the Taliban blowing up those ancient Stone Buddhas with the exception that they probably did it in a much more cost effective manner.I wonder how many agencies we had to create and bureaucrats we had to hire to destroy the ivory?
Maybe we could call the Agency "The Peoples Cultural Ivory Reclamation Bureau,"and the agents in charge of the confiscation, the Red Guard .

[VANDOO]

FROM WHAT I SEE IN THE PICTURES MOST OF THIS IS LIKELY PRE-BAN IVORY PERHAPS NOT 100 YEARS OLD BUT MOST LIKELY QUITE A BIT BEFORE THE FIRST IVORY LAWS CAME INTO BEING AND LONG BEFORE THE CURRENT LAW.
THE PROBLEM IS MOST OF THE ENFORCEMENT AGENTS HIRED WILL NOT BE TRAINED TO KNOW THE DIFFERENCE AND WITH THE NEW LAW WHY SHOULD THEY CARE. SO IF ITS IVORY IT NEEDS TO BE DESTROYED AND THE OWNER TAUGHT A LESSON AND MADE AN EXAMPLE OF TO COW ALL OTHER CITIZENS DOWN BEFORE THEM. THAT IS THE MAIN PURPOSE OF SUCH LAWS NOT THE SALVATION OF THE ELEPHANTS. DESTRUCTION OF ART AND HISTORY DOESN'T MATTER TO SUCH PEOPLE ITS ALL ABOUT POWER OVER OTHERS.
TO PROUDLY GRIND UP A COUPLE MILLION DOLLARS WORTH OF IVORY AND THEN ASK FOR DONATIONS TO SAVE THE ELEPHANTS MAKES PERFECT SENSE TO THE SENS-LESS. :(

[spiral]

Thanks Spiral. Yeah, even if newly carved i'm not sure i really approve of the destruction of art, though i do understand how new ivory carvings and the demand for them drive the ivory trade. I certainly can't find any reason to approve the destruction of antique ivory objects though. Of course the problem officials face is determining what is actually old and what has been artificially aged. The whole thing really is quite an unfortunate mess all around. :(


I know what you mean David, but for me the post ww2 electrical tool work is not the same as the old chisel carving , when it comes to art, indeed for the last 30 years the generic conveyer belt art from Chinese sweat shop production lines has been the major consumer of illegal ivory. And to me is not truly gallery quality never mind museum?


I dare say border officials will do a 2 hour course to make them think there experts! But fear the powers that be wont care whether old or new.... The concept as Tim earlier said to to make ivory be seen like something you accidently stepped in a park...



WOW...............your picture pretty much tells the whole story! It reminds me of the Taliban blowing up those ancient Stone Buddhas with the exception that they probably did it in a much more cost effective manner.I wonder how many agencies we had to create and bureaucrats we had to hire to destroy the ivory?
Maybe we could call the Agency "The Peoples Cultural Ivory Reclamation Bureau,"and the agents in charge of the confiscation, the Red Guard .


I understand your reaction & anger Drac2k, but personaly don't see those pieces in the same way as the ancient stone buddhas, there not as old or as skilled & such ivory carvings can be found all over the place still. {The net is full of them for sale...}{Probably because most are not that old?} I also think its worth remembering its not just communists who behave in a fascist manner perhaps?



FROM WHAT I SEE IN THE PICTURES MOST OF THIS IS LIKELY PRE-BAN IVORY PERHAPS NOT 100 YEARS OLD BUT MOST LIKELY QUITE A BIT BEFORE THE FIRST IVORY LAWS CAME INTO BEING AND LONG BEFORE THE CURRENT LAW.
THE PROBLEM IS MOST OF THE ENFORCEMENT AGENTS HIRED WILL NOT BE TRAINED TO KNOW THE DIFFERENCE AND WITH THE NEW LAW WHY SHOULD THEY CARE. SO IF ITS IVORY IT NEEDS TO BE DESTROYED AND THE OWNER TAUGHT A LESSON AND MADE AN EXAMPLE OF TO COW ALL OTHER CITIZENS DOWN BEFORE THEM. THAT IS THE MAIN PURPOSE OF SUCH LAWS NOT THE SALVATION OF THE ELEPHANTS. DESTRUCTION OF ART AND HISTORY DOESN'T MATTER TO SUCH PEOPLE ITS ALL ABOUT POWER OVER OTHERS.
TO PROUDLY GRIND UP A COUPLE MILLION DOLLARS WORTH OF IVORY AND THEN ASK FOR DONATIONS TO SAVE THE ELEPHANTS MAKES PERFECT SENSE TO THE SENS-LESS. :(


Interesting Vandoo, I guess that depends on which ban your talking about... the artefacts & tusks crushed where all seized for illegal importation {smuggled.} since 1990 either without paperwork or with false paperwork, thus breaking USA law leading to their siezure. I expect a few pieces may be pre.ww2 but most of the Chinese stuff seems to have bad proportions re.hand versus skull sizes etc..to my eye? So probably by Chinese art standards not particularly old or good?


The African stuff I cant tell, I've seen stuff from the 1930s that looks the same. But without a good loupe & in hand its hard to be sure?


I agree many laws are about subjugation from our "rulers" & whatever games they may play for whatever ulterior motives that drive them..


The people who crushed the ivory probably do nothing to help elephants or rhinos from their likely extinction , nor care less I agree, & if they did sadley even in the animal rescue trade , there probably only a few idealists who initially set it up who do genuinely care, then if they employ rangers, they will by necessity be ex.soldier,guerrilla, bush hunter types... who will also make a few pounds on the side when occasion arises..., its human nature, also in much of Africa corruption is the given as well. {not saying its not the same in the western world either, our politician's & police just try to hide it a little more, perhaps?.}


What can I say: I personaly don't mind a ban on post 1947 ivory & rhino horn, myself... & that cut of age date can be proved.. {at great cost...} But the destruction of items before that date seem nothing but vandalism to me.

The workmanship quality also drastically fell during & post ww2 to my perception as well. In most crafts in most country's.

But The idea that a chair like this can be be crushed.. Or a rhino horn statue like this appals me.

They are true pieces of art, there also historical & can hardly encourage the modern fake trade because their quality is superlative to a degree not viable or probably even possible to manufacture today.

As David rightly pointed out...

"The whole thing really is quite an unfortunate mess all around."

spiral

[drac2k]

Yes, I agree that Fascists and Nazis do behave very badly, however they tend to confiscate and preserve the artwork, i.e. the Kunstschutz,(even if it is only for themselves), and it is eventually recovered whereas the Chinese tended to destroy it, i.e. the "Cultural Revolution."It appears, they have learned from their mistakes, as evidenced by their attempts to recover it, however it seems that democracies will need to learn the same hard lesson !

[spiral]

I see your point...drac2k .& think its mostly true. I think stuff containing precious metals was often melted down in europe though? & some Chinese art was also kept stored & displayed? Much Russian certainly was.

But such discussion normally leads to closing of threads as political. So perhaps we shouldn't continue? If that's ok with you?

It was about the changes in US wildlife laws law & has encompassed many sides of the debate about ivory, without rancour, & is hopefully both informative & thought provoking for as all.as much as it is contentious & concerning.

All the best.
spiral

[David]

Yes, I agree that Fascists and Nazis do behave very badly, however they tend to confiscate and preserve the artwork, i.e. the Kunstschutz,(even if it is only for themselves), and it is eventually recovered whereas the Chinese tended to destroy it, i.e. the "Cultural Revolution."It appears, they have learned from their mistakes, as evidenced by their attempts to recover it, however it seems that democracies will need to learn the same hard lesson !
As Spiral rightly points out, if you guys don't want to see this thread closed quickly all discussion of politics needs to end now.
I also agree with Spiral that the pieces he showed being lined up for destruction can in no way be compared to the destruction of ancient stone Buddhas or true historically valuable antiques. I still see it as a shame once material has been shaped into art, but such hyperbole is not really helpful to this discussion.

[drac2k]

First, we must thank Spiral for bringing this situation to the forefront and it is noted that all parties have made valid points, however one common argument that I have a problem with is the assertion, that it is of recent manufacture and as such, not worthy of protection.
I am unable to determine by those pictures what is being destroyed ;I can not determine the age, the artistry or the total scope of the items that are to be crushed.
Next, I have a problem with the implied notion that something has to be thousands of years old to be art or valuable.Hawaii, Fiji, Samoa, and many other pre-European contact societies throughout the world that were unknown to us before the 18th century, certainly have valuable and beautiful artifacts.Is a Albrecht Durer more valuable than a Van Gogh, because it is older ?
In conclusion, I don't want us to go down the slippery path of saying "well ,it's only 100 years old, so it is not as bad as destroying something older."The perimeters are constantly closing.

[David]

First, we must thank Spiral for bringing this situation to the forefront and it is noted that all parties have made valid points, however one common argument that I have a problem with is the assertion, that it is of recent manufacture and as such, not worthy of protection.
I am unable to determine by those pictures what is being destroyed ;I can not determine the age, the artistry or the total scope of the items that are to be crushed.
Next, I have a problem with the implied notion that something has to be thousands of years old to be art or valuable.Hawaii, Fiji, Samoa, and many other pre-European contact societies throughout the world that were unknown to us before the 18th century, certainly have valuable and beautiful artifacts.Is a Albrecht Durer more valuable than a Van Gogh, because it is older ?
In conclusion, I don't want us to go down the slippery path of saying "well ,it's only 100 years old, so it is not as bad as destroying something older."The perimeters are constantly closing.
I seriously doubt that any of the statues in Spiral's photo are as old as 100 yrs. old. If any are then they qualify by most people's standards as being "antique". It does not seem to me that antique ivory is being destroyed by the US gov't. If it is it should be stopped. I am not sure whose statement leads you to believe that it is a "common argument" that recently manufactured art is not worthy of protection, but as Spiral has pointed out, these recent Chinese production pieces have neither the quality nor historical value of true antiques. No one suggested that a Durer should be more valuable than a Van Gogh simply because it is an older work. Both are acknowledged and historically important artists. But the same cannot be said of recent nearly mass produced ivory statuary from China. No one suggested that the work must be thousands of years old to be worthy of protection. I clearly mention antiques (which again would mean 100 yrs. or older) though in actuality if we need to draw a line in the sand, i believe that any carved ivory that it pre-CITES (1973) should be exempt from these new laws.

[VANDOO]

WHO IS TO SAY THAT THE GREATEST IVORY CARVER OF ALL TIME DOESN'T LIVE AND WORK TODAY? UNDER THIS LAW HIS GREATEST MASTERPIECES WOULD BE DESTROYED AND HE FINED AND IMPRISONED. THIS WOULD HAPPEN EVEN IF HE CARVED FROM A PRE-CITES STOCK OF IVORY. FOOD FOR THOUGHT
I AGREE MOST OF THE WORK THAT HAS BEEN DONE AND THAT HAS BEEN DONE IN THE PAST HAS BEEN OF A POORER QUALITY. AFTER ALL MOST CUSTOMERS ARE NOT KINGS SO NOT ABLE TO AFFORD THE WORK OF THE MASTERS.
A MORE REASONABLE WAY OF DEALING WITH THE PROBLEM SHOULD BE FOUND CONFISCATION AND DESTRUCTION OF ART OR A VALUABLE RESOURCE IS NOT A GOOD CHOICE.

[David]

Barry, let's keep in mind the actual source of ivory. The killing of these majestic beasts solely for the artistic endeavors of a theoretical "greatest ivory carver of all time" so that the piece can then be sold to rich westerners for their art collections is hardly justifiable in my universe. So, if the greatest human skull carver is out there trying to do his work today should we legalize the taking of human heads for the sake of his art as well?
Stocks of pre-CITES ivory is another question that needs to need looked into, but it seems to me that the only way to stop the illegal trade is to stop ALL new carving of ivory material. Pre-CITES ivory is a limited and finite supply. Who decides who gets to carve it and what happens when that supply runs out and demand for carved ivory pieces continues? As long as the market for new ivory carvings continues people will find illegal ways to fill it. IMHO the master ivory carver needs to move on to a different material. Continuing to carve new ivory pieces (even if it is pre-CITES material) only continues to drive the market for the stuff and encourages the poachers
My only concern, and what should be the only real concern of antique collectors (weapons or otherwise) everywhere, is the question of antique and pre-CITES carvings and usage. I have no tears for the latest and greatest ivory art carver and his woes about the possible destruction of his latest masterpiece. There are many other materials to carve that don't take the lives of elephants or other ivory bearing animals.

[drac2k]

David, you have just come up with the solution that has been evading all of us; the carving of human sculls.This is not a new tradition, but an old one dating from before the Viking scull mead cups, to the Tibetan practice of bone carving.The Dyaks, Igorots , and others also adorned heads that they took.
There is no need to sanction the illegal taking of heads as there are plenty around the world that could be had cheaply ; one immediate source I can think of would be from Isis, who don't seem to be utilizing them other than for terror purposes! I know, maybe you think that would be encouraging the illegal taking of heads, so I propose that when people die, if they wish, they could sell their bones to whomever they wanted to, to carve as they wish, irregardless of their skills.
I personally have been told that I have a huge head(my wife affectionately calls me bucket head);I would gladly sell it(to be taken after my death),to a "master carver," to do as he wished.Based on the size and bone density and small brain cavity, I am sure it would fetch a high price.I would also donate 10% of the proceeds to a game reserve in penance for any ivory that I might have purchased in the past by accident !

[spiral]

Interesting chaps, personally Vandoo I don't think the best carver of anything will be around today... because he will use electric power tools for speed...{time equals money.} so he may have an artistic eye but its not like the 1920 when it was all done with micro chisels where you needed to understand the medium, the texture & grain you were working in. With abrasive tools that is not so important.

Interesting point David re. a line in the sand.

For the law to be just. {whether people agree with it or not.} it needs accurate dates of what ok & what isn't.

You mention the Cities 1972 order, which actually banned the international trade in worked artefact dating pre. 1 june 1947.

That how the law is in used in most of Europe, although its only the last few years it been more heavily enforced.

Why that date was chosen I am not sure, {But it was just a month before the British gave up ruling India & Burma...}

But that date is more a less checkable as I understand, all bone ,,Ivory & horn on the planet had different radioactive isotopes than anything pre. August 1945 {Hiroshima.} it just took a couple of years to infiltrate every organic still alive via food. So all though there's a 2 year question of proof with that, it is more or less provable. :shrug:

Any other arbitry date , comes down to opinion, of is it realy that old or not, not proven fact. Morally I think 1972 is fine but, how does one prove such? & what prevents it being faked or mistaken opinion?

That's why I think the 1947 date is a good year... it is provable more or less.

But sadly whatever any of our thoughts it probably wont make a lot of difference to the current & forthcoming new laws.

In England its also illegal to rework old ivory, because years ago people would claim all there modern ivory work came from that one old tusk or item they had a receipt for..... And human nature being what it is many tusks would go through on that one receipt. {No dna matching to receipts.} I think that was also part of the 1972 act but could be mistaken.

Ivory poaching was already seen as a problem by cities back then.

But I think its stepping into another degree now.

Already Illegal import or export of one piece of ivory without the legal paperwork in Europe {the eec.}is punishable by up to 7 years in jail now.

spiral

[David]

But that date is more a less checkable as I understand, all bone ,,Ivory & horn on the planet had different radioactive isotopes than anything pre. August 1945 {Hiroshima.} it just took a couple of years to infiltrate every organic still alive via food. So all though there's a 2 year question of proof with that, it is more or less provable. :shrug:
That's very interesting. Any links to more information on that?

[David]

OK, sorry, i was just being lazy. Here are a couple of interesting links on the testing Spiral wrote about.
http://www.channel4.com/news/articles/science_technology/nuclear+bomb+tests+behind+ivory+dating+/3237257.html

http://whyfiles.org/2013/poaching-problem/

[VANDOO]

I AM NOT FOR THE KILLING OF ANY RARE ANIMALS FOR TROPHY'S OR BODY PARTS ELEPHANTS OR RHINO INCLUDED.
REGULATION IS NEEDED FOR ITEMS ALREADY REMOVED FROM ANIMALS NO LONGER LIVING. LEGISLATION MADE BY PEOPLE WITH AN EMOTIONAL AGENDA AND OFTEN VERY LITTLE KNOWLEDGE OF THE SUBJECT IN FULL OFTEN LEADS TO POOR LAWS CONFISCATION AND DESTRUCTION WILLY NILLY. WITH NO LOGIC OR PLAN TO BENEFIT ANYONE INCLUDING THE ANIMAL TO BE SAVED, SUCH LAWS DO MORE HARM THAN GOOD. THE HYPOTHETICAL MASTER CARVER IS JUST A FOR INSTANCE AND THE THOUGHT COULD BE APPLIED TO ANY FORM OF ART IF IT WAS ELIMINATED THRU LAW.
TRUE WE COULD REPLACE ALL IVORY PARTS ON OLD WEAPONS WITH PLASTIC AND REQUIRE OWNERS TO REPLACE THEIR IVORY CARVINGS WITH PLASTIC ONES AND THEN BURN ALL IVORY IN SHAME FOR HAVING EVER KILLED AN ELEPHANT THRUOUT HISTORY.
I SUSPECT A MASTER CARVER WILL GO OUT OF BUSINESS QUICKLY CARVING PLASTIC WHEN IT CAN BE EASILY CAST SO THE SKILL CAN BE LOST WHICH IS NO BIG DEAL. AFTER ALL THE HUMAN RACE HAS MORE ARTS AND CRAFTS THAN WE NEED ALREADY. THERE ARE MORE THAN ENOUGH COUNTRY'S IN THE WORLD THAT WILL CONTINUE THEIR PRACTICES TO ELIMINATE THE SPECIES IN DEMAND IN TIME ESPECIALLY IF SOME OR THE RESOURCES THAT COULD HAVE BEEN USED TO ACQUIRE THE FUNDS TO PROTECT THOSE SPECIES ARE WASTED.
I HAVE SAID ALL I CAN AND PERHAPS MORE NO FURTHER DISCUSSION WILL CHANGE ANYTHING ESPECIALLY THE CURRENT AGENDA I JUST WONDER IN DREAD WHO THEY PLAN TO GET NEXT. SAVE THE SHARK, SAVE THE TREE, SAVE THE FOSSIL, SAVE THE TRIBAL ARTIFACT, MINERAL OR WHAT HAVE YOU, NO FUR, FEATHERS, BONE, TEETH, LEATHER, WOOD ,OIL OR COAL, ECT. AFTER ALL THERE ARE NOW SEVERAL TV PROGRAMS FEATURING NAKED HUMANS IS THAT WHERE WE ARE HEADING. I AM WAY TOO OLD AND OUT OF SHAPE TO APPEAR IN PUBLIC NAKED. :D

[spiral]

Thanks for the links David they explain it well.

I just knew about it as 12 or so years ago Jon Chapman & other leading Rhino horn sculpture "experts" had what they thought was the oldest rhino horn carved cup known tested..... to date it... they were shocked to find out that instead of being c.500 years old or some such it was post nuclear age.

Which shows even the experts can get such things wrong. :shrug: {Hence the problem.}

I understand your reaction Vandoo, but although some campaigners are emotional as you say, the likes of the NJ & NY mayors & Obama are probably not emotional about it.

There may be many factors behind the current US laws, but they could also involve international politics, so we cant discus that on this forum. {Send me a pm if you would like quick info bulletin on what I rightly or wrongly think may be a factor.}

Or maybe the worlds just turning & changing & views are changing? I don't know.

Selling captured illegal ivory to fund elephant care does seem morally bankrupt to me. Its like selling heroin & crack to fund an anti drugs measure or help druggies... It doesn't really add up when examined...{to my way of thinking anyway.}

Your last sentence is very true, I think... What's next indeed? :shrug:

Hopefully something sensible & well thought out... but probably not..

spiral

[drac2k]

So VANDOO was right; there was a post WW2 master carver who was so good that he fooled all of the experts and as such he could have legally obtained his ivory, but based on our current laws, his work will be lost forever ?

[spiral]

So VANDOO was right; there was a post WW2 master carver who was so good that he fooled all of the experts and as such he could have legally obtained his ivory, but based on our current laws, his work will be lost forever ?


Interesting leap there...But I can see why you made it but no, it wasn't a masterpiece..

It was a very plain & naïve bowl/cup with a rough & weathered texture & deep patina, which is why it fooled the "experts" {I cant recall whether it had fake provenance as well.}

The perception being its So weathered, patined & simple it must be ancient!

But it wasn't..... it was just well faked modern crap of very little artistic value. {Ill try to get a photo of it tomorrow to illustrate. ;)}

Spiral

[drac2k]

Thanks, it would be great to see an example...........just in case I'm ever in the market for one, I wouldn't want to buy a fake.

[Shakethetrees]

As I read the new law and talked with people who collect who are also lawyers, as well as others in the antique auction business, I realize that you all might be missing a very important point.

When an item is seized the owner has to prove beyond any shadow of a doubt that the ivory in question is old. A coin or sterling silver tea set with maker's marks, engraved inscriptions and other information will mean absolutely nothing to a government inspector. What they need to see is original paperwork that is for the item in question, such as an 1890's bill of sale. Just because the company that made the set went out of business in 1900 is not proof enough to bank on. Paperwork is the only criteria they are willing to accept. So, a tea set with a couple of 1/4"x1/4"x1" pieces of ivory as insulators in the handle is in danger of being seized, unless new bone or other substitute insulators can be custom made and installed, and at not too small a price, I may add.

Now, the good thing I see in this: this crazy new law brings together antique weapon, musical instrument, furniture, objects d'art, and other collectors and museums in a way that any other law restricting the rights of collectors has never yet done.

In the opinions of the people I spoke to, almost universally they feel that if everybody hunkers down and lays low for a while re:any transactions, there is a more than reasonable chance this will be straightened out.

[spiral]

As I read the new law and talked with people who collect who are also lawyers, as well as others in the antique auction business, I realize that you all might be missing a very important point.

When an item is seized the owner has to prove beyond any shadow of a doubt that the ivory in question is old. A coin or sterling silver tea set with maker's marks, engraved inscriptions and other information will mean absolutely nothing to a government inspector. What they need to see is original paperwork that is for the item in question, such as an 1890's bill of sale. Just because the company that made the set went out of business in 1900 is not proof enough to bank on. Paperwork is the only criteria they are willing to accept. So, a tea set with a couple of 1/4"x1/4"x1" pieces of ivory as insulators in the handle is in danger of being seized, unless new bone or other substitute insulators can be custom made and installed, and at not too small a price, I may add.
.

Interesting concept STT. But it seems to me you seem to have missed a very important & relevant point about documentation?

To date, such documents are not usually an 1890 bill of sail as you refer to, They are usually a certificate from, Defra {in the UK},Cities, the fish & wildlife gang or whichever relevant party, based on written reports from people they except as experts, dating such items based on their experience.

Style, manufacture date based on makers etc. all helps provide such evidence for the experts report.

Have you any evidence that is no longer how it will be done?

Spiral

[Shakethetrees]

It was my understanding that this certification from CITES would require a much tighter set of criteria on which to award an exemption from confiscation.

The burden of proof will be entirely on the shoulders of the owner/vendor. The object itself will be almost pushed aside regarding this proof of age. It is old paperwork that they want, not expert testimony.

In today's litigious world, you can get an "expert" to state whatever you want, so rather than rely on this, they want to rely on documentation.

Remember, the objective here is to eliminate ivory or rhino horn from private possession, and possibly possession or display in most museums. If these substances and the objects made from them are entirely removed from the conscienceless of the public worldwide, only then can the elephant and rhinoceros be saved from poaching.

In other words, "Down the memory hole" with it.

[drac2k]

Good points, SHAKETHETREES, but you better leave the musicians out of the coalition to protest the ban ;it appears that they have been granted an exemption by the FWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service) and they can own pre-1976 Elephant Ivory in their instruments .I guess if your "cool," it's alright to
have it.
I don't blame the musicians, but if you have a flawed law and you start to carve out exemptions for some groups and not apply it equally, what are your real intentions ?

[spiral]

Here ye go Drac...

Post 1947 with artificial aging... So made with the intention to deceive...

Spiral

[drac2k]

Thanks, I think I'll stick with edged weapons.

[spiral]

Me to.... ;)

[Shakethetrees]

This is a great thread!

Spiral, (sorry, IDK your name), I just don't trust government types getting involved, telling the collecting community what they can and cannot collect.

They are up against folks who may have forty years experience dealing in the substance they're trying to ban, but they, individually, have a very short time investment attempting to learn the intricacies. So in order to get up to speed they must rely on papers or books that may be full of information that is outdated or just plain wrong.

I didn't want to bring this up, but if you go back to the early 1990's and have a look at the way the Janet Reno era gun regulations were written, they were full of discrepancies and just plain bad info.

[spiral]

It was my understanding that this certification from CITES would require a much tighter set of criteria on which to award an exemption from confiscation.

The burden of proof will be entirely on the shoulders of the owner/vendor. The object itself will be almost pushed aside regarding this proof of age. It is old paperwork that they want, not expert testimony.

In today's litigious world, you can get an "expert" to state whatever you want, so rather than rely on this, they want to rely on documentation.

Remember, the objective here is to eliminate ivory or rhino horn from private possession, and possibly possession or display in most museums. If these substances and the objects made from them are entirely removed from the conscienceless of the public worldwide, only then can the elephant and rhinoceros be saved from poaching.

In other words, "Down the memory hole" with it.


& I didn't want to bring this up, but if you go back to the early 1990's and have a look at the way the Janet Reno era gun regulations were written, they were full of discrepancies and just plain bad info. .

Thanks STT I must raise a few points in response.

S so its an "understanding" that leads you to think certification is changing... So it may or may not be so?

Its cheaper for those that wished to forge Victorian paperwork than pay an expert, so how will they check the paperwork? ... Pay another expert to give their opinion on the paper work? I know some laws are stupid & illogical , but that really doesn't make sense & would cost them rather than you money.

I know an expert can argue anything, but that's why I said the experts they except. {Ones they presume are knowledgeable & reliable.}

I agree many laws are badly, written discussion of gun laws is obviously not relevant, to this discussion though. I could say that there sensible laws banning murder in response.... But that would be equally not relevant to the discussion of ivory laws.

Spiral

[David]

Remember, the objective here is to eliminate ivory or rhino horn from private possession, and possibly possession or display in most museums. If these substances and the objects made from them are entirely removed from the conscienceless of the public worldwide, only then can the elephant and rhinoceros be saved from poaching.
I think we are slipping into hyperbole again. The objective of these new laws is to stop the poaching (and therefore the extinction) of elephants (100,000 elephants were poached for ivory in just the last 3 years). I have seen absolutely no evidence that there is ANY intention to remove ivory objects from museum display and it would be very difficult for authorities it find and confiscate these items in our personal collections. What these laws are devised to do is to stop the TRADE. What i see as the problem with these new laws (THE big problem for us and the only one relevant to our discussions here) is how they are handing antique ivory items. For new ivory objects the party is over and i must state that i have absolutely no problem with that at all. Barry bemoaned the fate of current ivory artists, but i believe he was incorrect that their art form was being brought to an end. That FORM is sculpture and it will continue throughout our existence. These artists will simply need to change their medium. As for antiques, THAT is where our problems lie. The reason i believe that these new laws are encompassing antique ivory is because so much new ivory is artificially aged to look antique and the authorities can't be bothered to train their people to tell the difference (though i cannot fathom why some of these new restrictions include fossilized tusks, since there is no way to fake that). But as Spiral has pointed out, testing for radioactive isotope can accurately date ivory to the 1947 timeline. What i don't know is how expensive this test actually is to conduct. But it seems that if we (as in ALL antique collectors) can find a way to petition the authorities to consider this form of testing for ivory items we might stand some chance of adjusting the laws to suit antique collectors.

[spiral]

But as Spiral has pointed out, testing for radioactive isotope can accurately date ivory to the 1947 timeline. What i don't know is how expensive this test actually is to conduct. But it seems that if we (as in ALL antique collectors) can find a way to petition the authorities to consider this form of testing for ivory items we might stand some chance of adjusting the laws to suit antique collectors.


I am under the impression from recent reading that it costs about $350 per item, But a decade plus ago it was thousands.

So I guess if a business was set up or a university wanted funds, & 100s of test were done the price would drop massively.

Spiral

[Richard Furrer]

Sorry for the question, but..........
What do they define "ivory" as?
I meet folk who say only elephant is ivory..others who say any tooth or tusk is ivory from any animal...be that hippo,walrus,warthog,whale,deer,mastodon,mammoth etc


Ric

[David]

Sorry for the question, but..........
What do they define "ivory" as?
I meet folk who say only elephant is ivory..others who say any tooth or tusk is ivory from any animal…be that hippo,walrus,warthog,whale,deer,mastodon,mammoth etc
Hi Ric. I have also heard some folks claim that only elephant tusk is ivory. However, the dictionary (this is Oxford i believe) defines it as follows:
a hard creamy-white substance composing the main part of the tusks of an elephant, walrus, or narwhal, often (especially formerly) used to make ornaments and other articles.
Though i am not sure what part of a deer might be considered ivory… :)
These new laws, however, are, for the most part, directed at elephant ivory in an attempt to end the poaching of elephants specifically. Though i would imagine that most of the inspectors probably wouldn't be able to distinguish elephant from marine ivory. :shrug:

[Sajen]

Though i would imagine that most of the inspectors probably wouldn't be able to distinguish elephant from marine ivory. :shrug:

Agree at this point! When you look to old threads there has been many discussions about ivory material and I think that the most of us have handled a lot of ivory and have some knowledge about ivory and still unsure by many items. Don't think that the inspectors will be better by this! :shrug: ;)

[Richard Furrer]

Agree at this point! When you look to old threads there has been many discussions about ivory material and I think that the most of us have handled a lot of ivory and have some knowledge about ivory and still unsure by many items. Don't think that the inspectors will be better by this! :shrug: ;)

I agree..sometimes hard to tell, but they have some guidelines here:

http://www.fws.gov/lab/ivory_guide.php
One would think that the powers that be would utilize them.
I'd hate to see multi thousand year old walrus tusks destroyed because there is not certificate stating that they are not elephant.

Ric

[Shakethetrees]

Agree at this point! When you look to old threads there has been many discussions about ivory material and I think that the most of us have handled a lot of ivory and have some knowledge about ivory and still unsure by many items. Don't think that the inspectors will be better by this! :shrug: ;)


My point exactly!

[David]

I agree..sometimes hard to tell, but they have some guidelines here:

http://www.fws.gov/lab/ivory_guide.php
One would think that the powers that be would utilize them.
I'd hate to see multi thousand year old walrus tusks destroyed because there is not certificate stating that they are not elephant.
True that they have these guidelines. However, identification becomes far more complicated once the ivory has been crafted into hilts or other parts of various cultural dress for weapons.

[spiral]

Though i am not sure what part of a deer might be considered ivory… :) :

Barking deer ?.... photo attached.


These new laws, however, are, for the most part, directed at elephant ivory in an attempt to end the poaching of elephants specifically. Though i would imagine that most of the inspectors probably wouldn't be able to distinguish elephant from marine ivory. :shrug:

I guess it might be possible to develop on the spot chemical tests such as are currently carried in drug test field kits? :shrug: or maybe not?

There is already a raft of laws re. walrus ivory in place in USA, one can presume the enforcement of those laws may receive a higher priority than in the last decade though.

spiral

[David]

Awesome skull Spiral…vampire deer! :eek: ;) :D

[spiral]

They are arnt they!

& Not to forget the Chinese water deer... ;)

[David]

Another nice one…i'm not so sure that these long incisors actually qualify as ivory per se, but they are cool. Probably too small for the kind of usage we generally see on old weapons (whole hilts or hilt scales for instance), but still very interesting. :)

[spiral]

For sure! It would have to be a tiny shamshir! :D

Just the nearest thing to deer ivory there is... they are sold as tusks not teeth & used for some tribal jewellery I think, in far east. :shrug:

spiral

[Robert]

These might be large enough for a small knife hilt. :D

[spiral]

These might be large enough for a small knife hilt. :D

Certainly large enough for a karda & chakmak!

But hes watching you... & listening with those teddy bear ears!

spiral

[David]

But hes watching you... & listening with those teddy bear ears!
…and that cute little kerfuffled ear… :D

[spiral]

…and that cute little kerfuffled ear… :D

That looks like its just brushed by Mike Tyson {or Robert!}...to me. :D

spiral

[spiral]

Not New Jersey , But relevant to those in the Uk... & probably all other so called "civilised" countries given time..

Perhaps The beginning of the end for miss labelling Ivory dealers & auction houses in the UK..

Seems like the police are doing the radioactive isotope check.

spiral

link (http://wildlifenews.co.uk/2014/10/first-ivory-trading-prosecution-for-uk-auction-houses/)

[A. G. Maisey]

Looks like the value, and price, of ivory just increased again.

[spiral]

Looks like the value, and price, of ivory just increased again.


Or just decreased in the UK unless clearly pre. 1947... Id guess clearly pre. 1947 as you say will become more valuable!

Who wants a collection of stuff that brings police through your front door? Only those who are fools or think {or actualy may be.} above the law.

Some UK dealers & collectors{{Most are members of this forum.} Even if they don't declare such stuff here.} have apparently cleared out anything not definitely pre that date over the last few months.

Why take the risk... being the consensus.

Times they are a changing... {as someone said 40 or 50 years ago in a little ditty...}

Spiral

[Richard G]

A couple of points:-

You can still import ivory into New Jersey provided you have shot the elephant yourself.

The UK Auctioneers subject to this prosecution have decided selling ivory is too risky and so now will not sell any at all.

Regards
Richard

[spiral]

A couple of points:-

You can still import ivory into New Jersey provided you have shot the elephant yourself.

The UK Auctioneers subject to this prosecution have decided selling ivory is too risky and so now will not sell any at all.

Regards
Richard

Indeed the rich have privilege's everywhere... ;) Obamas friend was given a licence import a black rhino tusk earlier in the year.

The UK Auctioneer is an amusing chap, Hes gone from claiming it was a one off mistake & he was a scapegoat for apparently not naming the seller?
{Shades of Omerta!}To now proclaiming he will now "lead the way" in ending the Ivory trade in UK auctions!

Apparently 16 other London dealers are awaiting notice of prosecution.

spiral

[Andrew]

Indeed the rich have privilege's everywhere... ;) Obamas friend was given a licence import a black rhino tusk earlier in the year.


Let's please leave the quasi-political/socio-political commentary at the door.

Andrew
Vikingsword Staff

[spiral]

Let's please leave the quasi-political/socio-political commentary at the door.

Andrew
Vikingsword Staff

Sure thing Andrew, I Certainly comprehend my Obama comment, as not necessary to say. {Although I had said it without thinking.}

Was the first part re. wealth acceptable? It seemed relevant? After all to fly to Africa, shoot a tusker, have the tusks removed & flown back to New Jersey , with the accompanying safari ,plane, hotel & "legal" paperwork fees probably come to over $150.000 minimum?

If not I apologise for that as well & it wont happen again.

spiral

[Andrew]

Sure thing Andrew, I Certainly comprehend my Obama comment, as not necessary to say. {Although I had said it without thinking.}

Was the first part re. wealth acceptable? It seemed relevant? After all to fly to Africa, shoot a tusker, have the tusks removed & flown back to New Jersey , with the accompanying safari ,plane, hotel & "legal" paperwork fees probably come to over $150.000 minimum?

If not I apologise for that as well & it wont happen again.

spiral

It was the Obama comment, Jonathan. Socio-economic comments are fine. ;)

[A. G. Maisey]

Marketing 101:-

if we make something desirable, the price will increase

nothing is as desirable as that which is socially unacceptable, even though that desirability may be found in only a segment of a population

[spiral]

It was the Obama comment, Jonathan. Socio-economic comments are fine. ;)

That's good then... It seemed relevant to me!

cheers!

spiral

[spiral]

Marketing 101:-

if we make something desirable, the price will increase

nothing is as desirable as that which is socially unacceptable, even though that desirability may be found in only a segment of a population



Or just decreased in the UK unless clearly pre. 1947... Id guess clearly pre. 1947 as you say will become more valuable!

Who wants a collection of stuff that brings police through your front door? Only those who are fools or think {or actually may be.} above the law.

spiral

[Sajen]

Marketing 101:-

if we make something desirable, the price will increase

nothing is as desirable as that which is socially unacceptable, even though that desirability may be found in only a segment of a population


Very good statement!

[David]

That's good then... It seemed relevant to me!
Interestingly enough, David Reinke, the hunter in question, is a major supporter of the Republican politics, so your reference to Obama wasn't really relevant at all. Let's keep politics off this site, thanks. :)
http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/extinction-countdown/2013/04/25/hunter-rhino-trophy/

[spiral]

Interestingly enough, David Reinke, the hunter in question, is a major supporter of the Republican politics, so your reference to Obama wasn't really relevant at all. Let's keep politics off this site, thanks. :)
http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/extinction-countdown/2013/04/25/hunter-rhino-trophy/


Your quite correct....My error.

Guess it was just his wealth , not his political affiliation..

But my "relevant" comment to Andrew was re. finances not Obama....;)

Perhaps you missed my post proceeding that one?

linky (http://www.vikingsword.com/vb/showpost.php?p=177621&postcount=89)

spiral

[spiral]

California calling? Further ivory & Rhino horn laws proposed in the sunshine state.

It seems Californian legislature may be further tightening up their ivory laws, as they believe 90% percent of antiques for sale our modern fakes.

"The bill introduced Wednesday by Assembly Speaker Toni G. Atkins and Senator Ricardo Lara does away with that exemption and prohibits “purchasing, selling, offering for sale, possessing with intent to sell, or importing with intent to sell elephant ivory or rhinoceros horn, except as specified under very limited educational and scientific circumstances.”

"Antiques containing 5 percent ivory or less and antique musical instruments containing 20 percent ivory or less -- usually vintage pianos -- will also be exempt.

Personally As I've said before I see 1947 as a good cut of year myself & more or less provable if necessary.