Proposed Ivory Ban - The Saga Continues...

[Joe Barringer]

Just got this in:

California, Washington, Iowa, Virginia and Connecticut are all introducing bills to ban the sale of ivory at the state level. Modeled after laws the Humane Society and Wildlife Conservation Society pushed through in New York and New Jersey, these laws are overbroad and hurt African elephant populations. They do not comply with exemptions in the Endangered Species Act, and they needlessly strip value of innumerable collectible items containing ivory, hurting owners and businesses alike. Hearings are scheduled in Washington State beginning tomorrow, so if you are from Washington, you have no time to waste!

Adding insult to injury, the Ivory Bans also ban ivory from mammoths - a species that has been extinct for 10,000 years!

Contact your state legislators to keep your state from introducing this kind of devastating bill. If you live in one of the states mentioned above.

United States Senators


House Representatives

Bottom line IMHO of course, it's the blind leading the blind here. You have dumb & dumber - legislators who follow along without knowing what the heck is really going on and then you have the even dumber tree hugging American population following along.

Perhaps they're not so dumb and intend to do this as a state-by-state ban. Try defeating that once it's enacted!

Can someone tell me where America is? I seem to be lost.

 

[CuesDirectly]

As to your treehugger comment,,,,

I believe in Earth First, we can log the other planets later.

I am also a member of PETA, People Eating Tasty Animals, I need too BBQ a Spotted Owl, living in Are-We-Gone, there are lots of them, yummy.

Darn gubment, I will have to cancel my Wooly Mammoth hunt after reading this.

What will they want next? MY IVORY BALLS?

 

[Bavafongoul]

Here's The Scoop.....CA Bill AB-96 (1-7-2015)

This is the pending legislation before the state senate that's likely to become hotly contested in order to move forward.


On Wednesday, January 7th, California Assembly Speaker Toni G. Atkins and co-author Senator Ricardo Lara introduced AB 96, a bill that would strictly ban ivory sales. This would close loopholes such as crafting fresh ivory to appear antique and selling it as ‘antique.’ The provisions of AB 96 would become operative on July 1, 2016.

In a new report commissioned by the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), Elephant Ivory Trafficking in California, USA the investigator examined more than 1,250 ivory items offered for sale by 107 vendors in Los Angeles and San Francisco. He found that up to 90% of the ivory for sale in Los Angeles and approximately 80% in San Francisco was likely illegal under California law—much of it advertised as antiques and/or crafted to look older so it would appear legal, though the pieces were more likely from recently-killed elephants. Additionally, the incidence of what appears to be ivory of recent manufacture roughly doubled from approximately 25% in 2006 to about 50% in 2014.

AB 96 would prohibit a person from 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, and would make this prohibition enforceable by the Department of Fish and Wildlife.

The bill would make a violation of this provision a misdemeanor subject to specified graduated criminal penalties. In addition to the specified criminal penalties, the bill would authorize the department to impose a civil penalty of up to $10,000 for a violation of this provision or any rule, regulation, or order adopted pursuant to this provision.

An average of 96 elephants a day are slaughtered in Africa so that their ivory can be sold, mostly in China and the US. A good deal of ivory comes into the US in personal luggage or by other means. Investigators comprehensively surveyed commercial vendors selling ivory in Los Angeles and San Francisco, California, which previous surveys identified as the U.S. cities with the highest proportions of potentially illegal ivory pieces and the largest ivory markets overall, behind New York City.

The data collection for this study was carried out between March 15 and April 11, 2014. A total of over 1,250 ivory items offered for sale by 107 vendors was seen in California, with 777 items and 77 vendors in Los Angeles and well over 473 ivory items and 30 vendors in San Francisco. In Los Angeles, between 77% and 90% of the ivory seen was likely illegal under California law (i.e., post1977) and between 47% and 60% could have been illegal under federal law. In San Francisco, approximately 80% of the ivory was likely illegal under California law and 52% could have been illegal under federal law. There is a much higher incidence of what appears to be ivory of recent manufacture in California, roughly doubling from approximately 25% in 2006 to about half in 2014.

In addition, many of the ivory items seen for sale in California advertised as antiques (i.e., more than 100 years old) appear to be more likely from recently killed elephants. Most of the ivory products surveyed appear to have originated in East Asia. While consumer demand for ivory items remains high, there are significantly fewer vendors in California selling ivory items than in 2006. Finally, both federal and state law enforcement of existing ivory laws in California appears to be minimal and there is widespread confusion among vendors about what constitutes the legal and illegal sale of ivory.

 

[QMAKER]

Ivory ban

Thank you for the information and the hard work that obviously went into preparing it.

This is the pending legislation before the state senate that's likely to become hotly contested in order to move forward.


On Wednesday, January 7th, California Assembly Speaker Toni G. Atkins and co-author Senator Ricardo Lara introduced AB 96, a bill that would strictly ban ivory sales. This would close loopholes such as crafting fresh ivory to appear antique and selling it as ‘antique.’ The provisions of AB 96 would become operative on July 1, 2016.

In a new report commissioned by the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), Elephant Ivory Trafficking in California, USA the investigator examined more than 1,250 ivory items offered for sale by 107 vendors in Los Angeles and San Francisco. He found that up to 90% of the ivory for sale in Los Angeles and approximately 80% in San Francisco was likely illegal under California law—much of it advertised as antiques and/or crafted to look older so it would appear legal, though the pieces were more likely from recently-killed elephants. Additionally, the incidence of what appears to be ivory of recent manufacture roughly doubled from approximately 25% in 2006 to about 50% in 2014.

AB 96 would prohibit a person from 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, and would make this prohibition enforceable by the Department of Fish and Wildlife.

The bill would make a violation of this provision a misdemeanor subject to specified graduated criminal penalties. In addition to the specified criminal penalties, the bill would authorize the department to impose a civil penalty of up to $10,000 for a violation of this provision or any rule, regulation, or order adopted pursuant to this provision.

An average of 96 elephants a day are slaughtered in Africa so that their ivory can be sold, mostly in China and the US. A good deal of ivory comes into the US in personal luggage or by other means. Investigators comprehensively surveyed commercial vendors selling ivory in Los Angeles and San Francisco, California, which previous surveys identified as the U.S. cities with the highest proportions of potentially illegal ivory pieces and the largest ivory markets overall, behind New York City.

The data collection for this study was carried out between March 15 and April 11, 2014. A total of over 1,250 ivory items offered for sale by 107 vendors was seen in California, with 777 items and 77 vendors in Los Angeles and well over 473 ivory items and 30 vendors in San Francisco. In Los Angeles, between 77% and 90% of the ivory seen was likely illegal under California law (i.e., post1977) and between 47% and 60% could have been illegal under federal law. In San Francisco, approximately 80% of the ivory was likely illegal under California law and 52% could have been illegal under federal law. There is a much higher incidence of what appears to be ivory of recent manufacture in California, roughly doubling from approximately 25% in 2006 to about half in 2014.

In addition, many of the ivory items seen for sale in California advertised as antiques (i.e., more than 100 years old) appear to be more likely from recently killed elephants. Most of the ivory products surveyed appear to have originated in East Asia. While consumer demand for ivory items remains high, there are significantly fewer vendors in California selling ivory items than in 2006. Finally, both federal and state law enforcement of existing ivory laws in California appears to be minimal and there is widespread confusion among vendors about what constitutes the legal and illegal sale of ivory.

 

[Bob-O-Rama]

Don't no much about geography...

AB 96[/B] would prohibit a person from 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

Pool is all about geometry and physics, so I think you are covered.

-- Bob

 

[Shooter08]

I'm sorry but ivory is useless, camel bone or holly is just as usable. Make me an offer on my Runde with all the ivory that TW was impressed with and you just might be able to get it. Ivory does nothing for me personally.

 

[Walkermine]

Just regarding California, this legislation pretty much takes ivory off the table as a cue option for Ginacue, Chudy, McWorter, Tonkin, Carmeli and many other cuemakers. It will get very interesting to see how this eventually influences high end cue collecting, especially the shows. Looks like recon ivory and recon ebony (plastics) will be the future. Not looking good.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PSxihhBzCjk

 

[eddie0776]

I'm sorry but ivory is useless, camel bone or holly is just as usable. Make me an offer on my Runde with all the ivory that TW was impressed with and you just might be able to get it. Ivory does nothing for me personally.

Save the elephant but kill the camel? What makes the camel more important than the elephant?

 

[cueaddicts]

I'm sorry but ivory is useless, camel bone or holly is just as usable. Make me an offer on my Runde with all the ivory that TW was impressed with and you just might be able to get it. Ivory does nothing for me personally.

Actually ivory is very use-ful to many cuemakers. What I mean by that is that for many, the currently legal, pre-ban ivory options which adorn their cues alone may comprise as much as 20-25% of their entire gross sales. The stats vary of course, but it is a chunk of change across the board. With the shaky (at best) custom cue market and state of pool in general here in the US, those makers will not be able to replace that income difference by using holly, camel bone, or other less exotic or suitable materials. Try to tell many small businesses that they will have to take a 20% hit on their bottom line and just see what happens.

 

[JoeyInCali]

I'm sorry but ivory is useless, camel bone or holly is just as usable. Make me an offer on my Runde with all the ivory that TW was impressed with and you just might be able to get it. Ivory does nothing for me personally.

You can't turn camel bone round for collars.
Holly is nowhere near ivory in hardness.
Mammoth ivory should be legal.
I shot mine 30 years ago.:embarrassed2:

 

[scdiveteam]

Hi,

There is one thing that you can count on in life and that is change.

The beauty of an Ivory inlay can be just as beautiful as Elforian or another substitute.

The funny thing I have observed is that some people who buy cues seem to think Ivory is a very expensive material and therefore makes the cue worth a lot of money. Preception v. Reality. Yes joints and butt cap do bring the material cost up but inlays are really not that expensive when you consider the whole cost of the cue.

So in the end you are paying for the precision craftsmanship and the time of the cue maker concerning doing inlays. After all of the ivory controversy is over, the buyer will have to adjust to paying for the time and material that a cue makers spends doing their craft concerning inlays which has always been the case. Some substitutes are not cheap.

I have used a lot of Ivory and have built cues with over 150 inlays. Since Joe B started to inform us about this Ivory witch hunt, I personally stopped using the stuff and that's the way it goes.

The cost of the ivory in pricing a cue should not influence the value of fancy cues going forward that much, unless you go underground in the blackmarket world by continuing to use ivory. Any CM who does that is just asking for trouble because when the federal agents get someone in the box, don't count on them to keep their mouth shut to save a cue maker using ivory. Big fines and jail time could be in your future.

We all have to get used to this sea change in the industry as we all have to get used to changes in all aspects of life.

We all need to "Get over it". This too will pass.

JMO,

Rick

 

[Shooter08]

Camels die naturally and can also be eaten and most species are not endangered. Possible bonus the Terrorist Muslims will be pissed about losing their ride (bad joke). As far as holly goes I meant for inlay purposes not joints. I did not know you cannot turn camel bone round. Appreciate the info JoeyInCali. I don't ever expect to build cues but I do like to know as much about construction as I can.

 

[JoeyInCali]

..............

 

[phil dade]

There are several interesting articles from National Geographic you can optain by googling National Geographic Ivory. Asia creates the market and hence the poaching problem. The market in USA and Europe is small and could probably be served by legally obtained ivory. The poaching is very disturbing.

 

[Sheldon]

Ivory has always hyper-inflated the value of cues, and allowed for some gouging. I see this as the main reason some people are having such a hard time with it being outlawed.

First, I don't think the ivory issue has anything to do with pool cues. I don't think it has much to do with anything that ivory is used for either. It has to do with politics and money. It serves as a vehicle for chest pounding and pocket lining, both very closely related.

 

[Thomas Wayne]

Camels die naturally and can also be eaten and most species are not endangered. [...].

I take it from these points about camels you are suggesting that elephants do NOT die naturally, cannot be eaten, and ARE endangered.

You are completely wrong on all those points. Tree huggin', bunny lovin'. milk-is-murder idiots buy into anything the wildlife NGO's preach, without realizing that those NGO's are HUGE businesses raking in hundreds of millions of donation and government grant dollars to preach their misguided bullshit. Presumably you are smarter than them, so allow me to enlighten you a bit.

Elephants die naturally every year. So much so that in excess of 100 tons of ivory hit the African floor each year with ZERO human involvement. Far more ivory is generated from natural death of elephants than has EVER been produced by poaching.

Elephants are slaughtered every day for their meat - a quick Google search will produce plenty of images of specialized slaughterhouses where this takes place. The hides, bones, meat and tusks are all used - no part of a government-approved slaughtered elephant goes to waste, and a single elderly or unmanageably rogue elephant can feed an entire village for a quite a while.

And finally, elephants are not "endangered". They ARE referred to that way in the news and by the NGO's whom you may mistakenly believe are in it because they're good people. But it is a fact that in MANY areas of Africa the biggest elephant problem currently being faced is OVER-population.

You may be opposed to the use of ivory, and that's fine - although if you did any REAL study on the African elephant issue you might realize that the only realistic hope for them is ultimately a regulated and controlled international trade in Natural-death Ivory. I do think if you are going argue against the use of elephant ivory over camel bone your argument should be more carefully researched. All of the points you make about camels dying naturally, being used for their meat, and not being endangered are equally true about elephants.

Maybe work on new arguments...?

TW

 

[Shooter08]

TW, I stand corrected, I let my disdain for those who slaughter elephants interfere with being more educated to the issue. I would like to see the poaching stop, not the use of legal ivory stop or cue makers to incur any hardship. I was just being over the top in the fact that Ivory is not necessary to make a beautiful cue. I appreciate your compliment on my Runde cue as it obviously has lots of ivory and I requested it knowing it was all legit.

 

[rhinobywilhite]

ivory

It doesn't seem to bother some folks as their choices and rights are whittled away by government and a small, vocal group of naysayers.

As long as the ivory is legal( and yes, there are some folks who will not follow the rules) I see no harm in using this item. Spend Federal money to locate and punish those who continue to import illegal ivory.

You, as a consumer or cuemaker, have a choice as to whether you want ivory in a cue but it should be your choice not that of the government or some other person or group.

If every piece of ivory was prevented from being used in a cue, one will not save one elephant. Folks in Europe and Asian countries will buy up illegal ivory and the killing will continue. Why not consider donations to help the proper authorities in countries with an elephant population to locate, then punish or kill the poachers and also establish more elephant sanctuaries.

They are magnificent, intelligent creatures who deserve to be here for the future.

 

[Bavafongoul]

In Righting One Wrong Another Is Created......

I believe that elephants need to be protected......their needless slaughter is irrefutable and this also applies to other endangered wildlife species.

I believe that ivory used in a pool cue for the ferrules and the cue joint makes a meaningful difference in the overall hit and feel which many of us refer to as the "play" of the cue. Now some may disagree but I don't stand alone in my opinion and that's not a topic worth debating.

Having said this, the conundrum becomes balancing the role of ivory in pool cues with the ivory ban which is really very much needed. I think the law needs to be enacted on a de facto basis and in conformity with other de facto enacted legislation, such as the 1978 original ivory ban that actually established the "legal ivory" that's already here....right now.....in the USA. And on the issue of ivory used for inlays, well, that's easily replaced with other decorative material and the design of the cue doesn't affect its play. However, the material used for the ferrules and joints does affect the cue's play and personally, I think ivory performs the best.

So while I support the ban on ivory, artifacts & curios, etc., containing legal ivory .....pre-ban ivory....that merchandise is legal and to regulate that as if it's equivalent to raw ivory is absolutely an over-stretch and misapplication of the law. Instead, there needs to be provision within the regulation that allows for items to be made using 'legal" ivory and a certificate attesting to that needs to get issued.....it could get registered in a database......cue-makers would have to account for their usage of ivory and any purchases......they'd pay a license fee and would be subject to inspection.

What I'm saying is that when you treat "legal, pre-ban 1978 ivory" for all intent and purposes as really illegal ivory since its effective use is diminishing right before our very eyes, that's wrong. If the ivory is here right now in the USA, it's legal and there's a finite amount of that ivory....just like Cortland Linen......and you can't import any more without being strictly regulated......make everyone register all the ivory in their inventory and manage that information for legal ivory certificate issuance. There's ways of making this work without creating another wrong with the intention of protecting the elephants.

I do not buy into the argument that the ivory being installed in my cue underway is connected to the slaughter of elephants. My cue-maker is using "legal" ivory and I should not be denied my rights to use it in my pool cues because someone poses the argument that the use of any type, form of all ivory, perfectly legal or otherwise, contributes to the slaughter of elephants. That's like saying things made with ivory, regardless of when it was made......even if it was the 1700 or 1800's.......should be confiscated because it "inspires" using ivory.

Draw any line in the sand you want but always respect the fact that if the ivory is legally here in the USA, it should be permissible to use and sell that ivory in any fashion you choose. When you start messing around with infringing on that inherent right......it's legal ivory.......then you cross the line and create another wrong even though your intention was noble.

Matt B.

 

[RBC]

I believe that elephants need to be protected......their needless slaughter is irrefutable and this also applies to other endangered wildlife species.

I believe that ivory used in a pool cue for the ferrules and the cue joint makes a meaningful difference in the overall hit and feel which many of us refer to as the "play" of the cue. Now some may disagree but I don't stand alone in my opinion and that's not a topic worth debating.

Having said this, the conundrum becomes balancing the role of ivory in pool cues with the ivory ban which is really very much needed. I think the law needs to be enacted on a de facto basis and in conformity with other de facto enacted legislation, such as the 1978 original ivory ban that actually established the "legal ivory" that's already here....right now.....in the USA. And on the issue of ivory used for inlays, well, that's easily replaced with other decorative material and the design of the cue doesn't affect its play. However, the material used for the ferrules and joints does affect the cue's play and personally, I think ivory performs the best.

So while I support the ban on ivory, artifacts & curios, etc., containing legal ivory .....pre-ban ivory....that merchandise is legal and to regulate that as if it's equivalent to raw ivory is absolutely an over-stretch and misapplication of the law. Instead, there needs to be provision within the regulation that allows for items to be made using 'legal" ivory and a certificate attesting to that needs to get issued.....it could get registered in a database......cue-makers would have to account for their usage of ivory and any purchases......they'd pay a license fee and would be subject to inspection.

What I'm saying is that when you treat "legal, pre-ban 1978 ivory" for all intent and purposes as really illegal ivory since its effective use is diminishing right before our very eyes, that's wrong. If the ivory is here right now in the USA, it's legal and there's a finite amount of that ivory....just like Cortland Linen......and you can't import any more without being strictly regulated......make everyone register all the ivory in their inventory and manage that information for legal ivory certificate issuance. There's ways of making this work without creating another wrong with the intention of protecting the elephants.

I do not buy into the argument that the ivory being installed in my cue underway is connected to the slaughter of elephants. My cue-maker is using "legal" ivory and I should not be denied my rights to use it in my pool cues because someone poses the argument that the use of any type, form of all ivory, perfectly legal or otherwise, contributes to the slaughter of elephants. That's like saying things made with ivory, regardless of when it was made......even if it was the 1700 or 1800's.......should be confiscated because it "inspires" using ivory.

Draw any line in the sand you want but always respect the fact that if the ivory is legally here in the USA, it should be permissible to use and sell that ivory in any fashion you choose. When you start messing around with infringing on that inherent right......it's legal ivory.......then you cross the line and create another wrong even though your intention was noble.

Matt B.

Matt

First, I don't think the ivory issue has anything to do with pool cues. I don't think it has much to do with anything that ivory is used for either. It has to do with politics and money. It serves as a vehicle for chest pounding and pocket lining, both very closely related.

What Thomas was relating to is all factual real world information. Most all of the ivory, if I'm not mistaken, that is the result of the natural death of elephants is being stock piled or destroyed. If that ivory were to be sold, it would not only support the world's demand for ivory, but it would also bring much needed financial resources to those countries whose elephants are being poached. That money would allow those countries to hire and arm legitimate fighting forces to combat poaching. This is a proven strategy as those countries who have chosen to sell their ivory and fund the fight against poaching have thriving elephant populations.

I too am disgusted with the senseless slaughter of elephants for their tusks. However, I also believe that any ban on ivory, here or elsewhere, has very little to do with stopping poaching and much more to do with chest pounding and pocket lining. In fact, I believe that these steps will make it much worse for the elephants. Imagine that, the people who are claiming to be fighting to save the elephants, are actually virtually assuring the continued senseless slaughter of elephants for their tusks.


Just so everyone knows, I'm not an ivory proponent. I'm not against it either, but it's never really been a big deal to me. I'm more of a production cue guy, so we don't use it in any of our cues because we need to be able to sell them anywhere in the world. I do speak out on this issue because I think it's a classic example of how good intentions can turn into bad deeds. And also how misleading things can be on the surface. You really have to do your own research these days.


Royce Bunnell