Ivory Ban

You nailed it......February 26, 1976.....if the elephant ivory was in the USA before that date, it's legal.

Otherwise, if the ivory is from the below animals, it's perfectly legal without regard to any date whatsoever:

Walrus
Warthog
Hippopotamus
Mamoth
Mastadon

So I really don't care what the source of the ivory is for my pool cues as long as its legal.
Whale ivory is already being strictly regulated and so if my cue-maker uses ivory that
complies with the specificity of the law, as well as its intent, what's the beef?

I'm sure the day is coming when I'll have to obtain or try to obtain CITES certificates for my
pool cues. I may ask my cue-makers about that or what proof they might have to corroborate
their legal possession of the ivory in their inventory. The day may arrive when this is needed
in case my heirs were interested in the sale of my pool cues.

Regardless, I am not deterred nor dissuaded in the slightest from acquiring pool cues that have
ivory cue joints, ferrules & inlays.......I can acquiesce on the inlays for MOP but the ferrules and
cue joint will continue being ivory on cues that I buy......sounds like I better move fast. But if that's
really the situation, cues prices should be plummeting but that's not the case at all.

Nonetheless, it was more than disconcerting to read J V's post about Steve Klein thinking about
discontinuing the use of ivory in his cue-making. It's admittedly a screwy situation but I'm staying
the course and sticking to my guns......if current prices of a couple of cues I admire appreciably drop
due to concern over this new ivory reg, then I'd feel duty bound to make a move on getting a couple
of cues for my collection. I know I wouldn't be able to unload them, but my kids can sell lots of other
shit if they needed money. The cues are meant to be retained as "Dad's Collection" and because of
all the ivory, the collection should be all the more special.


Owners of elephant Ivory

Question: Is ownership and use of personally owned elephant ivory items affected?
Answer: Personal possession of legally acquired items containing elephant ivory will remain legal.
 
This is a very different scenario. Outlaw furs and see how much the demand will rise. Plus you're dealing with two totally different uses, and cultures. You will not stop the Asian demand for ivory.

A lot of the pre-ban ivory was taken during trophy hunts. BTW you do know that trophy killing of elephants is still allowed right? Do you also know that elephant herds are culled (reduced by hunting) in parts of Africa?

JV

J-Flo said:
Not always the case. Once people found out how animals were raised in the fur industry, sales have fallen ever since. The social stigma that is attached to fur is stronger than the desire to wear a fur coat. Do some people still ware fur coats, absolutely. Have most of the fur coat retail stores gone out of business, absolutely. I remember large fur stores advertising on the large networks here in Chicago. Don't see that anymore. So when a cue owner realizes that a large portion of pre band ivory actually came from elephants who were slaughtered the same way the elephant was in the picture below, maybe the demand will go down. Thats right sports fans, your pre ban ivory loaded cue was made possible by an animal who met the same fate as the elephant in the article. But it was all legal. So if your comfortable with owning material that was harvested in such a way than more power to you.
Just because you have the "right" to do something, doesn't mean its the "right " thing to do.
Click to expand...
 
J-Flo said:
....So when a cue owner realizes that a large portion of pre band ivory actually came from elephants who were slaughtered the same way the elephant was in the picture below, maybe the demand will go down. Thats right sports fans, your pre ban ivory loaded cue was made possible by an animal who met the same fate as the elephant in the article....
Click to expand...

Sorry, this statement is patently false. More "shock-value" but you're not after that, right. Carry on.
 
I wonder if AZ will continue to allow cues with ivory to be sold in the WFS section once the ban goes into place?
 
Why use ivory? You can't argue that it looks or plays better. You probably have to tell people that's it's ivory. You have to look real close to verify it's ivory. There are several substitutes that look the same and probably play better. lay 10 cues out 2 with ivory and 8 with different materials. How easy can anyone pick the 2 out from 5 feet away. So what's the point.

Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk
 
jburkm002 said:
Why use ivory? You can't argue that it looks or plays better. You probably have to tell people that's it's ivory. You have to look real close to verify it's ivory. There are several substitutes that look the same and probably play better. lay 10 cues out 2 with ivory and 8 with different materials. How easy can anyone pick the 2 out from 5 feet away. So what's the point.

Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

You're correct!

It will and should be an individual's choice to use or not use Ivory. I will only speak for myself and won't condemn those who choose otherwise.

For me, I make the choice of not choosing Ivory in anything, especially pool cues. Pool has had enough black eyes and doesn't need another one staying around forever, since we can make a choice. I won't lose any sleep over others choosing Ivory but would hope that they would consider making the same choice as mine.

I'm just not buying into the pre-ban Ivory "story".

And the Ivory Poachers? Well, they're just lazy f***ing thieves who choose to kill and steal instead of working for a living. If you believe otherwise, just go ahead and believe it.

JoeyA
 
This is basically a black & white question with little room for gray opinions.

Question: If ivory already here in the USA is never sold again for anything.....the sale just outright stops.......nothing gets sold again for musical instruments,
decorative applications or pool cues, etc......how will this stop or even curtail the slaughtering of elephants?

I'd love to hear how ivory that's considered to be legal and is eventually used to make something encourages or contributes to the slaughter of elephants.
Is anyone suggesting that legitimate businesses that run out of a source for legal ivory, like a cue-maker, would revert to trying to buy the ivory illegally thru
the black market so they can continue using ivory for cues that may not be able to be resold because of the ivory? Does anyone remember Cortland Linen?
As the supply dwindles and dries up, the continued use of the material gradually dies as well. If you can't replace it, then what you have you charge more for.

This theory doesn't hold water very well. Once the source for legal ivory is exhausted, it's really gone as far as the USA is concerned. Furthermore, as the
availability of any legal ivory becomes gradually and inevitably more limited, due to consumption, the price of all legal ivory (Pre-February 26, 1976) will soar
as the quantity diminishes because it won't be replaced. The market will eventually price the use of legal ivory out of any practical use and also, the criminal
risks for violating the ban will largely dissuade illegal importation of ivory into the USA. You can never stop all crime but the illegal ivory trade and the senseless
slaughter of elephants is not the result of, nor even associated with the cue joints, inlays & ferrules Bob Owen & Jerry Rauenzahn uses in making my cues.

To think anything like that is an absurd associtaion that most reasonably minded persons wouldn't attempt but here on AZ , it seems like doesn't necessarily
apply due to the fervent and controversial nature of this subject. Anyway, any time someone does something that is in conformity and complies with the law or
any regulation, their actions do not deserve or even warrant condemnation. The fact is there is ivory here in the USA that is considered legal......and the new
regulation makes it harder to sell pool cues with ivory at some point in time......or so it's starting to seem like that......so the pool cue owner assumes all the risk.

Matt B.
 
Last edited:
One person may not be able to stop the senseless slaughter of elephants but one may simply stop buying Ivory encrusted items.

Thieves sometimes frequent pool rooms selling "hot goods". You never know if something is stolen or not so just by simply saying "NO, I won't take any chances and I won't buy something unless I am positive that it is not stolen or illegal, you at least take a stand on it.

I'm sure there are cue makers out there who have purchased pre-ban Ivory or at least thought they purchased pre-ban Ivory. If I were a cue maker I'm not sure what I would do with Pre-ban Ivory. I know that I would discontinue buying Ivory of any kind. I would rather have my customers and potential customers looking at me with admiration rather than wringing their hands, happy that they scooted under the radar with some Ivory joints and such.

I'm not trying to make suggestions for anyone else but this is my personal opinion on purchasing items containing Ivory. I won't knowingly in the future purchase any items which contain Ivory. The truth is I purchased a carved elephant tusk (picture below) at an estate sale probably 20 years ago.

picture.php


While it isn't worth a fortune, it's sale might put a few dollars in my pocket, but it won't. I'll ask my son to keep it as a memento of Dad's things and never to sell it. I don't know what he will do or what others will do but I know what I will do and that's all that matters.

IT IS UP TO EACH MAN TO WORK OUT HIS OWN SALVATION.

JoeyA
 
it's sad the shrinking Elephants in that carved tusk seem to parallel the reality of the their situation.
 
I've got two cues with ivory in them...my most recent acquistion and current player has a simple ivory Hoppe ring, my other, an older Schon with quite a bit of ivory inlays in the points and butt sleeve. I chose them with ivory, not because of playability, but beauty. It was considered neither immoral nor illegal to choose finished ivory inlays...but now it's apparently both immoral and illegal. I have no plans to ever sell either cue, but it would really suck to have it confiscated at an expo or tournament out of state, with no CITES certificate to prove I didn't break the law. I think this law is unenforceable, but those with big, expensive, extensive collections are going to have a really hard time flipping or selling what they have. Those that are agreeing with the measures taken with ivory may find themselves in a similar boat, when their Brazilian Rosewood or Ebony or Cocobola or whatever wood is declared illegal to purchase, sell or even possess without some sort of CITES certificate. Gibson got jammed up over rosewood, even though it wasn't endangered and they eventually won an expensive court case...all because of trade agreements with India over the state the wood is imported. It really never ends...let's just enjoy our stuff while we can.:(
 
Sean Moss at Fish & Wildife very clearly explained to me that a pool cue would not be confiscated solely because
it contained ivory, that is unless you were trying to import or export the cue out of the USA mainland or territories.

Possession of the cue is "presumed" under the law to be legal under the regulation and unless you were doing something
with your pool cue that's in violation of the new regulation, you can keep you cues forever and no one will ever confiscate
your cues because of the ivory in these cues.


Matt B.

(http://forums.azbilliards.com/showthread.php?t=366937)
 
Last edited:
Do you want to know what my crystal ball shows....

Some whiny crybaby person that got offended on the internet calls the PA office of the USFWS and says there is a cue show and there is a ton of ivory merchandise and on top of that, its made with illegal rosewood, ebony, rare pearl and elephant ear leather. THEN the raid comes and not a single cue gets spared except cuetecs...:)

JV

Bavafongoul said:
Sean Moss at Fish & Wildife very clearly explained to me that a pool cue would not be confiscated solely because
it contained ivory, that is unless you were trying to import or export the cue out of the USA mainland or territories.

Possession of the cue is "presumed" under the law to be legal under the regulation and unless you were doing something
with your pool cue that's in violation of the new regulation, you can keep you cues forever and no one will ever confiscate
your cues because of the ivory in these cues.


Matt B.

(http://forums.azbilliards.com/showthread.php?t=366937)
Click to expand...
 
Your FWS rep forgot to mention that it bans selling across state lines, as well as import/export. They very well may raid a show/convention with out of state sellers.

The same things happened when tortoise shell was listed on CITES. The market for used TS is completely gone, pre-ban or not. They are moving ivory into the same exact category as TS.
 
All of my below comments are my persnoal opinion and are not legal interpretation. It is up to the individual comply with these new regulations.

I think the ownership of a cue containing ivory is fine according to what I read in the link provided by the OP. I found the following interesting. It is all about what is deemed "commercial "or for "financial gain". I think the biggest challenge would be in obtaining a CITES pre-convention certificate. Every existing cue would, in my opinion, contain "worked" ivory, and as long as you can document that the African elephant ivory was obtained prior to Feb 16, 1976, you would be fine.

I think selling a cue with ivory on here would be an issue if the cue had to be shipped interstate. Likewise a dealer at an event out of state would be in violation.

But I believe that if a buyer were to travel to the state where a desired cue with legal ivory is for sale, buy it there, then carry it across state lines when the cue will be for personal use and not for resale, it would be fine.

Thoughts?


What is a CITES pre-Convention certificate?
A CITES pre-Convention certificate can be issued for specimens that were taken from the wild before the species was listed under CITES. For the African elephant, the pre-Convention date is February 26, 1976. For questions on how to obtain a pre-Convention certificate, please contact managementauthority@fws.gov.

What documentation will be accepted to show that an item was imported prior to the species listing in CITES Appendix I?
The Service will accept any record or document that substantiates either the date of import (for example, a copy of the relevant Form 3-177 Declaration for Importation or Exportation of Fish or Wildlife or CITES export or re-export permit) or that demonstrates that the item was in the United States before the Appendix I listing date (for example, a datable photo of the owner with the item, a dated letter or other document referring to the item).

The Director’s Order refers to worked African elephant ivory that “was legally acquired prior to February 26, 1976.” What does that mean?
February 26, 1976, is the date the African elephant was first listed under CITES (the pre-Convention date). An item that contains African elephant ivory that was removed from the wild prior to February 26, 1976, is considered to be a pre-Convention specimen. This does not mean that the current owner must have purchased or acquired it prior to 1976, but that the item was manufactured from ivory that was taken from the wild prior to 1976. For example, a musical instrument that was manufactured in 1965 using African elephant ivory would be considered a pre-Convention specimen. Likewise, an instrument manufactured in 1985 using ivory acquired by the manufacturer in 1975 would also be considered a pre-Convention specimen. Since it is unlawful to possess specimens that have been traded contrary to CITES or taken in violation of the ESA, the ivory must have been legally acquired.
 
Anyways I have been reading the elephant huggers boards, and boards all over where articles are posted and let me tell you, there are some real heated discussions happening.

I think one of the big hurdles that is faced by the ivory users, is the fact that it is alleged that terrorists are being funded by ivory and poaching. This has serious legs, even though the ONLY articles I can find that have the reference are clearly biased and written by extreme leftists. Its like reading birther posts because you know that the extremists are doing the reporting.

The other issue, is these articles report that the loopholes all favor the illegal smugglers. There is a lot of talk of doctoring new ivory to look antique and that the obvious and ONLY solution is total banning. NONE of the left are conceding or will even admit that law enforcement from countries or the local level are at fault. The majority want anything ivory destroyed even if its antique and they will not listen to anything that doesn't agree with that philosophy. If you told them DaVinci's paintbrushes were ivory handled, they would want to destroy the Mona Lisa. These people have no concept of middle ground.

They firmly do not believe that this ban will expedite the demise of elephants and they do not believe that people in Asia will still pay premiums.

The same people who think killing elephants is wrong, but abortion is not killing humans. I really think that the inmates are running the asylum.

JV
 
Cuenut brings up an interesting point.

I've posted before that I only buy my cues for personal play, not for resale, and I did not buy my cues to make a profit
but II nonetheless still feel that the cues would retain their value because of the cue-makers if liquidated with my estate.

So let's see....how's this for an example........I attend a cue show....say the Windy City Show.......in another state than where I reside, California.
I see one of Eddie Cohen's great designs, or heaven forbid, the two Klein cues on JV's website (www.classiccues.com), and this let's say the worry
over ivory has everyone so nervous that the price was right and I buy one or even a couple of cues. Again, everything I buy is for my collection
and I have no intention of reselling a cue. Heck, I have a 2007 Bob Owen cue listed now for "trade"......I am not trying to sell the cue........that's
not my thing, but don't get me wrong, I have sold cues in the past. I'm just saying what I buy is meant to be kept.

So back to the sale.......did I break the law buying the cue(s)? Did I break the law when I crossed state lines.....I mean I do have to return home with the cue(s)?
Or does the new reg favor me since there's no intention of resale and thus, the seller of the cues who sold the cues as part of their business enterprise is the
party that has acted in conflict with the new ivory ban regulation?

Since I did not purchase the cue(s) for eventual resale, the sole intention on my part was to acquire the cue(s) for a collection and no commercial resale
was even contemplated........and the way the regulation now reads, the sale of these cues seemingly contradicts the law....the only thing I can rationally
come up with is that the seller would be viewed to have violated the regulation more than me as a buyer.......but I might be wrong......hear me out first.

The logic would be the sale took place at a cue show, the cue was sold by a cue dealer, and the cue contained ivory.....absent any CITES documentation or proof
the ivory was legal, it would seem the cue was sold for commercial reasons.........now if my reasoning holds up, then the next question is did both the seller and
buyer violate the new reg? To my way of thinking, the seller obviously has the greatest risk and for the buyer, it depends on his motives.....if the cue was traded with
another cue dealer/professional, or sold to them, it would appear both parties are liable. But if the buyer was an individual and no commercial resale is intended by
the buyer who acted as a collector, not a re-seller of pool cues, I tend to think the buyer has a whole lot less risk, if any at all, but I do not for sure that's the case.

So what do you think about what I concocted as an example but it's a very real one since the Windy Cue Show is normally held in the Fall which is just around the corner.
Anyway, for those interested, you can stay updated in the Cuemaker section where Joe Barringer and JV post information about the ivory ban problem.

Matt B.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top