OK, we've been in communication with our attorney, FWS and other worthwhile entities. The entire new regulation hinges on the wording 'use after' import. This is what is causing concern for everyone.
Since pre ban ivory never had a 'use after' clause this sounds like it would be excluded. Confirming this fact is FWS stating:
"As you note, if there was no documentation requirement at all (because it was imported in 1920), then there would also have been no restriction on its use after import. However, there are some instances when import is allowed but the documentation (such as a CITES permit) explicitly indicates that the import is for non-commercial use. This is often the case for sport-hunted trophies, for example".
The part in bold is what we are interested in. The rest pertains to post ban and trophy ivory which we all know cannot be resold.
It looks promising and we're still investigating. We hope to have something more definitive in the coming days ahead. It looks like we're all still in business but we need to thread slowly until it's all defined.
We believe the following explains it:
"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)."
Therefore, based on the above: if a seller of ivory can prove pre ban status as has been the case all along, then it qualifies under the 'use after' regulation because there was never any "use after" clause associated with pre ban ivory. Makes sense to us. :thumbup:
That may be one hurdle that is clarified but we believe they are trying to impose regulations limiting interstate sales. We are awaiting news on this which should be coming down the pike in the coming months ahead.
Until then it looks like it may be business as usual. This is not to be construed as a definitive explanation so proceed with caution. We are awaiting further clarification.
Since pre ban ivory never had a 'use after' clause this sounds like it would be excluded. Confirming this fact is FWS stating:
"As you note, if there was no documentation requirement at all (because it was imported in 1920), then there would also have been no restriction on its use after import. However, there are some instances when import is allowed but the documentation (such as a CITES permit) explicitly indicates that the import is for non-commercial use. This is often the case for sport-hunted trophies, for example".
The part in bold is what we are interested in. The rest pertains to post ban and trophy ivory which we all know cannot be resold.
It looks promising and we're still investigating. We hope to have something more definitive in the coming days ahead. It looks like we're all still in business but we need to thread slowly until it's all defined.
We believe the following explains it:
"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)."
Therefore, based on the above: if a seller of ivory can prove pre ban status as has been the case all along, then it qualifies under the 'use after' regulation because there was never any "use after" clause associated with pre ban ivory. Makes sense to us. :thumbup:
That may be one hurdle that is clarified but we believe they are trying to impose regulations limiting interstate sales. We are awaiting news on this which should be coming down the pike in the coming months ahead.
Until then it looks like it may be business as usual. This is not to be construed as a definitive explanation so proceed with caution. We are awaiting further clarification.
