Official Luthiers Forum!

Is everyone aware of this proposal from our wonderful guardians in Washington? The below was sent to me today from David Warther who is the owner of Guitar Parts & More http://www.guitarpartsandmore.com and a respected buyer & seller of Pre-ban Ivory.

Hello Everyone!

Ivory Ban - The Presidential Advisory Committee that met 12/16/13 does plan to recommend a total ban on ivory sales, within the US, to the task force on Wildlife Trafficking. If you want to oppose that action please email ACWT@FWS.GOV before December 28th when they file their report. I have attached a letter you can use but feel free to change it as may fit your interests and work.

This is not a ban on new ivory but rather a ban on the sale of ALL ivory that is in any form. This includes pre-ban and antique ivory in musical instruments, knives, guns, cues, etc. and will make Grandma's piano illegal to sell if it has ivory keys. This sounds ludicrous but it is true. If this passes then it will take the form of a bill that will be set before Congress in 2014.

Presently this ban on the sale of ivory is to include fossil mammoth ivory as well as pre-ban and antique elephant ivory.

Please forward this information to everyone you think may want to voice
their opposition to this type of government control.

Sincerely ,

David Warther
2561 Crestview Dr. NW
Dover , Ohio
44622

http://www.guitarpartsandmore.com ( website )

This is a tough issue. If the government wanted to buy up the material I wouldn't have as much of a problem with it. However, the fact that there is legal ivory drives the illegal market. People are bribed, paperwork is forged etc, money is the root of all evil.

I choose to use fossilized walrus ivory or bone instead but I'm also not sitting on a bundle of elephant ivory. I only recently started building so it was already banned when I started and I chose not to buy any of the pre-ban stuff. It really is a shame that people are willing to illegally kill these magnificent creatures for their tusks . It would also be a shame not to be able to harvest the ivory of an elephant that died of natural causes. Such a waste.

The one thing that is clear is that if we continue on the same path, elephants will end up extinct. Right now Asian are critically endangered. African elephants are classified as vulnerable, but both continue to decline at a rate as high as 80% of the population per generation. That's like a credit card with an interest rate of 50%-80% that is not being paid off.

At the turn of the 20th century, there were a few million African elephants. Today, there are an estimated 450,000-700,000 African elephants.

There were about 100,000 Asian elephants and now there are 35,000-40,000 wild Asian elephants.

Indeed part of that can likely be attributed to climate change/drought, but a good portion is definitely a result a poaching for ivory. I understand both sides of the issue and there really cannot be a win situation for both sides. It's kind of a similar issue to BW, Madagascar RW and Dalbergia Cultrata. I own all three but it is a bit of a moral dilemma each time I buy a set. Pre-ban material is always preferred, but in the end is there really any way to be 100% positive of what I'm buying? Whether CITES woods or elephant ivory.

Just my humble opinion on the issue.

It would be interesting to chart the growth of the human population against the decline of other large animals. We seem to blame poaching for the decline of elephants, crocodiles, and the large cats, but how many of us would want them in our back yard.
Unless they start cloning Mammoths, banning mammoth ivory makes no sense.

I am in favor for the following reasons. Practically speaking, elephant poaching will not stop until the ivory trade is gone. Eliminating the value and potential for ivory acquisition is IMO the only pathway that will stop this problem. Elephants are wonderful, intelligent animals and we should protect them. And yes, I think it is very sad that the only real way to solve this problem is to give up all forms of ivory -- but I feel the ends justifies the means in this situation. I sincerely believe that unless such an extreme measure is taken that the poaching problem will only continue. In short, this is one of those situations where I think "big picture" is very important.

However, I do believe that mammoth and fossilized ivory should be allowed and that antique items like pianos should also be given an exemption -- but I am in favor of current sales of raw ivory stock (even if legal) should be banned.

I agree that certain items should be grandfathered in, just too many possibilities for trouble. Think of the old piano, the antique powder horn, or whatever. What happens to it in an estate sale? Hey, let the government have it! Think about it, over the years they could even add a wing to the Smithsonian, just to showcase all the old instruments they confiscated.

_________________
Phil

http://www.oleninstruments.com

"Those who tilt at windmills are only considered insane by those who can't see the dragon."

I highly doubt they would ban any type of fossilized ivory. That would be incredibly silly.

Fossilized is the way to go though being that it is the one way to 100% know that a vulnerable/endangered species was not killed in order to provide the material. I've also wondered about petrified wood as a potential alternative but I've never heard of anyone giving it a go.

I have several pieces off petrified wood, and walked though acres of specimen logs.
IMHO it would be unusable.
Petrified means turned to stone, and that is what has happened to the wood.
The organic material has been replaces with minerals in the form of the original wood.

_________________
The name catgut is confusing. There are two explanations for the mix up.

Catgut is an abbreviation of the word cattle gut. Gut strings are made from sheep or goat intestines, in the past even from horse, mule or donkey intestines.

Otherwise it could be from the word kitgut or kitstring. Kit meant fiddle, not kitten.

Another leftist do-gooder feel good agenda by the gov/t to tell the americun sheeple how to live.When will this BS end.?? +1 Todd. You cannot legislate free enterprise and it certainly won/t end poaching, just because a bunch of drug addled politicians in DC said so. The killing of these poor elephants won/t stop till the folks who do the killing, wheeling and dealing stop. oh oh here comes another long thread

Hi Colin,
How did you manage to misquote me so wonderfully? I believe it was Joey who mentioned petrified wood.
I think naturally petrified (mineralized) wood would be like working with stone. Doable with the right tools.
I have read there is a process to petrify wood in a matter of days using chemicals and heating it in an argon atmosphere at 1400 C. For small pieces (Nuts and inlays) this might be an interesting thing to try.

When the States started passing seat belt laws at the Federal government's behest I knew this Country was in a downward spiral when it comes to individuals' liberties. When the Government starts protecting people from themselves freedom becomes an endangered species.

Good topic for this forum. I think about this alot. I've contemplated buying some ivory (from a reputable dealer) for nuts, saddles, inlays, etc... but have held off doing so on moral (and other) grounds (not that I'm the most moral person.) I DO believe that trade in legal ivory drives current poaching.

Fact is that nothing will change until people don't want Ivory anymore. I guess I'm there, but it had to do with a few things. First, I don't think Ivory is the best material for a saddle, acoulstically. Second, the price. Third, the suspect legality of the material. And lastly, the feeling I get when realizing that me paying $100 bucks for a bit of ivory is what keeps people poaching.

All that said, I'm definately against the gov't telling me what to do in situations like these, and also, let's face it, the gov't can't do anything right...

I tend to agree with Tod in his opinion about governance over "We the People" but I have a different take on the actual source.

I don't think the most of our elected officials really want to be heavy handed since they know what the backlash from such decisions are. The problem lies with a very small minority with big dollars and very powerful lawyers/lobbyist's.

It seems to me the current system of money/influence/lobbyist is the main driver of our government so we no longer have a representative government but one that is driven by a very small minorities with big pockets.

I am a firm believer that lobbyist's should never have direct access to our elected officials. They should have to play by the same rules as the rest of Americans and use the voting booth instead of bribes.

Only then will our elected officials truly act in our behalf.

As for the topic at hand... I think banning anything only in one country is a total wast of time and will never solve anything. If you want to stop the slaughter of animals or the burning of forests or cutting down on carbon it has to be done on a global basis and you have to go after the source not the end user.

Chances of that are pretty much ZERO.

I guess I have never really been poor, I can't imagine anyone killing an animal for its tusks(but its certainly true). I suppose the real purpose of regulations like this are to make all ivory taboo- it just seems like another attempt at controlling our very thoughts. Each day, I tend to think I am living more and more in an orwellian novel.
But I spent my youth surrounded by folks 2 and 3 times my age, and they seemed to feel that way 30 or so years ago, I recollect.
So I am unsure, is it really becoming this way, or is it just a function of my age.
I feel certain Todd is right. Or maybe he's just old.
In any event, these new laws are designed by a newer generation that is certainly smarter and wiser than all that have gone before-at least that's what my iphone tells me.

I think Todd's post was a particularly elegant response to the demerits of these kinds of laws - more to the realities and dangers of big government. Sadly, the government is indeed ineffective and bloated and everything they touch seems to be run with an astonishing degree of incompetence. However, banning the sale of ivory is the only way to stop the problem. If there is demand for this product at all, poaching will continue -- this should be an obvious fact to those with higher order thinking skills. Hopefully, as America leads the charge then other nations would commit to the idea. If most of the countries in the world banned Ivory, then it would absolutely make a difference. The point is you have to start somewhere.

Secondly, this is absolutely not a left/right political issue. Folks talk about "sheeple" but fail to realize that "sheeple" are what divide this country into a left and right. The degree to which out politics and the people are partisan is astounding. There is much in common with the left and right but nothing gets done when people can see the path to compromise -- both republicans and democrats are guilty of this to an alarming degree. Currently, there is not one American news station that provides an evenly remotely unbiased and objective view -- very sad!!!

I agree that the ramifications of this law could be a nightmare if written poorly. Ideally, this ban would ONLY apply to the sale of raw Ivory stock (that has not been turned into a product) - otherwise, there would be a mess surrounding the application of the law.

I got an interesting perspective on this sort of thing a while ago. I read an article where an economist responded to a claim that climate change would totally disrupt the agricultural system by saying that it didn't matter, since agriculture is only 4% of the economy. So what is the guy going to eat when the agriculture system goes away?

I think a lot of the problems we face have the same basis: we don't exist in terms of the larger economy, and therefore our interests are expendable. When the Lacey Act extension was passed it was aimed at manufacturers of flooring and furniture, who buy lots of wood and process it quickly. That's why it had a two-year phase-in period; to allow them to use up their stocks and get current with paperwork. When they woke up to our problems it was too late; there were already vested interests who favored the law. The environmental lobby and the furniture people like it, for various reasons, and feel that any relaxation, such as a grandfather clause, would only invite wide scale cheating. Of course, it's also late in the game for that; the time for a grandfather clause is when the law is passed, not years down the road.

It's hard to argue that sales of existing stocks of elephant ivory don't help drive poaching, no matter how 'legal' the existing stocks are. OTOH, I can't see how sales of mammoth ivory are harmful, since it's fairly easy to distinguish the two. And, of course, there has to be some sort of mechanism respecting the integrity of antiques and works of art. Are museums going to be allowed to buy and sell ivory items under this law? Will they confiscate the ivory lute in the National Music Museum in Vermilion, or all of the guitars with ivory nuts and saddles in museums around the country?

Something has to be done to preserve the relatively few elephants that remain, but stupid laws are not the answer, and until equity and justice are considered as important as economic clout, we're going to see more stupid laws.

Realize that this same law of banning and confiscation of Ivory can and will be applied to Brazilian Rosewood.
I imagine there are more living elephants than BRW trees?
Then a similar law can (will) be applied to Mahogany and any other species the committee decides to list.
It goes deeper than that since it sets up the precedent to ban look-a-likes.
The interested group(s) that is pushing this law are not doing this only to save elephants.

_________________
Lance Peck

I don't think this is a left or right thing, not for me anyway. I don't fall under either category as I hate both sides equally. Generally I am very libertarian, especially about my guns. However this is one of those issues that I fall to the left-authoritarian side. So long as this bill would not ban materials harvested from 100,000 year old fossilized remains, I really don't have a problem with it. Then again I would be unaffected by such a law because I have chosen not to own any ivory in the first place other than the fossilized variety for my own reasons.

Asia's elephants are critically endangered now and will likely become extinct within the next decade or so. When that happens the targets will be squarely on the 500,000 or so remaining African elephants.

There can be no case specific data to show whether or not such a law would have any affect until the law is passed and new data is analyzed after implementation. However one can draw a parallel to Brazilian Rosewood. If you look at that situation, had BRW not been banned from trade so many years ago- would it still be around today? I'm not if it was ever "endangered" but today it is listed as "vulnerable". Whether that is an improvement to it's previous classification I do not know. Whether the fact that it is still around being a result of the ban...well that's up to you to decide.

The demand of Asia will not change, that is true. However, Asian elephants are "critically endangered" and they still hunt them. When they run out of elephants to poach they will turn to Africa. And that is the key to the whole thing- the cooperation of the African governments that control the elephant's habitat. It doesn't do much good to ban the trade of ivory in the US if Africa/African customs doesn't do the same. That was the key to the BRW trade ban- Brazil's desire to preserve BRW.

Many African governments are already on the right path. Up until now big money, big-game hunts have been allowed through the purchase of permits in places like Botswana until now. Money raised apparently went to other conservation efforts. This coming year those hunts will no longer be allowed because the population cannot handle losing more bulls. That is another step in the right direction and if those types of things continue to happen then an ivory ban will make a lot more sense to me. Just my $.02

"I guess I have never really been poor, I can't imagine anyone killing an animal for its tusks(but its certainly true)"

And Food! I've heard if you cook them just right they kinda taste like a black rhino.

The elephant in the room is of what use can we make of these creatures. Conservation of a species in many cultures depends on the utility it has for the people who have to live with it.

wrong. National Public Radio news is quite fair and accurate, and it can be heard for free virtually anywhere in the USA. and before the chorus of "you're wrong!" sputters from the right wing mouthpieces in here who reflexively regurgitate Fox/Limbaugh talking points and soundbites, i would like to say: please cite an example or two.
the move to eliminate ivory is an ongoing international effort, not something that "Nobama" dreamed up to keep the downtrodden white man's dreams of freedom and ambition of success suppressed.
somehow i think you will still manage to build somewhat passable instruments without the use of ivory.
by some logic i see in here: if i have a steamtrunk full of cocaine that i inherited from my great grandfather from the early 1900s [before cocaine became a controlled substance], i should be free to use it and distribute it today. right?

I wonder how a US ban would affect the overseas markets?
And, is the US is a large importer of Ivory products?

_________________
wah
Wah-wah-wah-wah
Wah

Nyazzip,
I respectfully disagree -- which means I recognize that an intelligent person can share your persuasion -- but I disagree about the NPR being unbiased. I do agree that they are one of the least biased news stations out there (more liberal than they are conservative) and I do greatly enjoy listening to their programs.

However, it wasn't my intention to bring politics into this discussion (for that, I apologize) -- I was trying to point out the false and ultimately, destructive mindset that views any kind of conservation as a left and right political issue. So let's get back to the original topic.


I think the truly relevant point here is that unless desire for ownership of ivory is eliminated -- the problem will persist. As Todd and others have pointed out, the problem isn't just going to go away with a ban. Furthermore, a poorly written law will only bring frustration. However, I do believe that the best course is a complete ban on the sale of all raw ivory product in the US with exemptions for ivory products that already exist.

Who cares? Ivory has absolutely no property that is essential to the guitar other than the allure of "the real thing/vintage correct". This is not a civil liberties issue. This is about trying to protect from extinction one of the greatest creatures on the face of the planet. Step back a bit, stop crying and dump your stock of ivory before it's too late! Bone is just as good...

Does everyone at least acknowledge that elephants are at risk for survival of their species, or are there actually people here who deny this and lump it together with climate change conspiracy and the fake moon landing?

I'm going to assume (perhaps boldly) that no one has their head that deep in the sand, and start from some points I have to imagine anyone above a room temperature IQ could agree on.

1) Elephants are at risk of extinction if their hunting continues as current. Yes? Okay then.

2) Their primary value and motive for their slaughter is their tusks. Still with me? Great.

3) This value is driven by demand (unless you're one of those crazies that believe in supply side economics) which the US, although far from being the sole driving force, is still a significant influence. I hope I didn't loose too many of you there.

So would the impossible task of completely eliminating new ivory imports to the US solve the problem and save the elephants? No, but along with international incentives to nations where ivory is being poached to better control the supply side, and pressure on other countries to help lessen the demand, it is at very least a critical component toward a solution.

So how do we control the demand side on our end? We could make import of new ivory illegal. Oh wait, tried that and it doesn't seem to be working too effectively. We could let the free market come up with a solution without government sticking it's nose in with new regulations. Hold on a minute - that's right, I'm not crazy.

One way that could be effective in driving down demand and value is to make possession of ivory an imprisonable offense, not only to sell, but to own. I mean, who would want to be caught in possession of ivory then? Of course that's stupidly Draconian, and although it would be effective to one end, it would also be terribly unfair in others.

Allowing possession of but forbidding sale or purchase of seems a reasonable middle ground to me. Allowing sale of 'pre-ban ivory' might sound like a good idea, but come on, how much of the 'pre-ban' stuff sold in the last 25 years do you think really is legit? No doubt a good part of it, but obviously not enough (how much do you think has actually made it through to become 'pre-ban' in the us market for every tusk that has actually been seized?). Moreover, continued legal trade in even truly pre-ban ivory keeps the market demand and value high, which of course encourages continued poaching, import, and laundering to make it 'pre-ban' (which involves nothing more than saying you bought it at an estate sale or inherited it from your aunt).

Of course this does not come without complications. Countless vintage artifacts including instruments, hairbrushes, figurines, etc, would be condemned as non-transferable, which a not an insignificant problem.

Perhaps another compromise would be a database for every artifact containing ivory to be registered. Owners of such items could have until Dec 31st of the calendar year following passage of such bill to register with clear photos the existence of such artifacts, with which ownership could be legally transferred. Without registration however, even ownership of such items would be illegal. This would mean that if the bill passed in 2014, after 12/31/15 no new items could be fashioned from ivory, and either ownership or sale of unregistered items could be subject to fines and confiscation. Anything made before that and registered would be able to slip through as legal whether it was truly pre-ban or not, but since there's no way to verify 100%, I don't see how this could be effectively addressed.

Not a perfect plan, maybe not one that would work at all, but at least it's an idea toward a possible compromised solution rather than just saying "I don't like regulations so do nothing about it at all."

Ivory trade is a problem.
There is absolutely no excuse for anyone to fashion new products containing ivory today, and if you do so you are contributing to the problem.
The preservation of historical artifacts is important, and accommodations must be included to allow legal ownership and transfer of said artifacts (which works against the goal of driving demand and prices down).
The fabrication of new artifacts must be vigilantly discouraged, with penalties at least of confiscation and strong fines in place to act as deterrents. The increased risk of sale and/or ownership of unregistered items could serve to drive prices and demand for newly fashioned items down.

It's not an easy problem to solve by any stretch, and this is why solutions often end up so mind bogglingly complicated, but attempts to find more effective solutions than the current ones must be pursued. Quite frankly, I don't see much way of doing this without regulations designed to discourage the demand side. Focus only on cutting the supply, and demand will continue to rise along with prices, which will simply increase incentive for the suppliers to meet this demand.

Please don't call your representative and tell them it inconveniences you and therefore they should do nothing. If you acknowledge that there's a problem but you don't like the solutions being considered, you better be able to propose an alternative solution that can be demonstrated as equally effective before whining about the one you don't like. My ideas may not work reasonably at all, but at least I'm putting out some ideas toward a solution rather than just complaining.

And for God's sake, don't make or sell any new products with ivory. That's just shameless and irresponsible.

_________________
Eschew obfuscation, espouse elucidation.

We could spend more money enforcing existing laws, but that is usually futile, and the person who suffers is the small time business owner that turns old ivory hair brushes into bridge pins. He gets busted and paraded on TV as a criminal mastermind who had literally dozens of pieces of ivory, ILLEGAL ivory in his shop!! The general public is happy because the law makers they are paying are finally doing their job and enforcing the laws, but not a single piece of illegal ivory is prevented from coming into the country by this bust, and not one elephant is saved as a result. What needs to change is not the law, or how it is enforced. It is the beliefs of the people who want to buy the ivory, and that is usually people with money. I have not seen one person on welfare discussing how they want to buy an ivory comb. An excellent example of how changing people's beliefs affects their purchasing decisions, can be found in this story about shark fin soup(The article also mentions the demand for ivory):
http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/in-china-victory-for-wildlife-conservation-as-citizens-persuaded-to-give-up-shark-fin-soup/2013/10/19/e8181326-3646-11e3-89db-8002ba99b894_story.html

Getting the people who purchased the soup to understand the consequences of their purchases had a much bigger effect on th shark population than any law that was passed banning the fishing of sharks. The demand for ivory among the wealthy in Asia is driving the demand for the product. Eliminate their desire for dead elephant teeth, and you eliminate the killing of elephants for their hideously mutated incisors.

I submit that goats be employed to catch poachers. Here is a goat attacking two people who were carrying illegal ivory:

_________________
http://www.CostaGuitars.com
PMoMC

It's all so simple! Carefully considered legislation, international cooperation, adequate funding, awareness programs! Why didn't anyone think of any of this before? If only the OLF ran the world, everything would be so much better.