Proposed ivory ban should not treat everybody like elephant poachers
ASSOCIATED PRESS
A special agent for the Fish and Wildlife Service showed off tons of ivory at the National Wildlife Property Repository in late 2013 that subsequently was crushed at the facility. The items were seized from smugglers, traders and tourists.
COURTESY PHOTO
Randy Harris, a Honolululu resident and Hawaii State Bar member, was formerly vice chairman of Merrill Lynch International and president of Merrill Lynch Japan.
The indiscriminate poaching of elephants for their ivory is one of the truly great tragedies of contemporary society.
Those engaged in illicit ivory trade and any countries that facilitate it should be treated very harshly in the court of law for this shameful pursuit.
However, ordinary citizens, museums and antique dealers who for generations have collected antique ivory should not be lumped together with those who have perpetuated the shameless degrading of wildlife for their personal pursuit.
To personalize this perspective in Hawaii, I first became interested in whale tooth scrimshaw in the 1970s during trips to Lahaina with my family.
This led to purchasing a piece of antique whale tooth scrimshaw at a Sotheby’s auction in New York in 1981. The provenance for this tooth was 1830.
I have acquired more pieces over the years, all with provenance well over 100 years.
Several of these pieces were engraved by very famous scrimshaw artists from the mid-1800s, a few dated and signed. These scrimshaw engravings were some of the earliest examples of a uniquely American folk art.
Some of the bills considered in Hawaii — and elsewhere for that matter — broad-brush legitimate collectors of antique ivory with the reprehensible poaching and destruction of wildlife habitat.
This legislative rejection of precious objects of art in the form of antique ivory is unacceptable, particularly where there is a documented provenance or an expert can establish the authenticity of the object being over 100 years old.
In order to facilitate the oversight of antique ivory, there should be a regulatory framework consistent with federal law.
The notion of a 20 percent ivory-content standard is extremely difficult to administer in a fair and equitable fashion, which as a matter of public policy is essential to the attainment of any perceived objective.
Further, antique whale tooth scrimshaw is 100 percent ivory in its original art form unless it is mounted on a presentation stand or possibly as bookends. Other examples such as antique chess pieces also are 100 percent ivory.
The de minimis standard for compliance is far too sweeping and unworkable, regardless of the threshold percentage.
Further, this approach accomplishes no objective toward the goal of eliminating the illicit poaching of ivory.
The current proposals in the Legislature may make the proponents feel good, but will not save an elephant or any other source of ivory in today’s wildlife habitat. We have to do better in the interest of all concerned.
For discussion purposes, let’s assume there is a full ivory exemption for Native Hawaiian traditional cultural practices (possibly various Asian cultures as well), all piano and other musical instruments, ivory received through an inheritance and ivory used for educational and other scientific purposes through established museums or educational institutions.
For the balance, which is largely antique dealers and private collectors, establish a registration process. There would be a rebuttable presumption in benefit of the owner that this ivory was over 100 years old.
Upon request or at the time of transfer to a new owner, it would be necessary to verify the item was over 100 years old through documented provenance or written authentication by an expert.
3 responses to “Proposed ivory ban should not treat everybody like elephant poachers”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Many of the things Mr. Harris is concerned about were exempted from the two bills now going through the legislature that propose bans on trafficking in a wide range of products and parts of endangered wildlife species. Mr. Harris is taking the right approach in calling for amendments where the legislation overreaches, if it does. Others opposing the bills simply want to continue the thriving multi-million dollar ivory trade here in Hawaii, which was identified as one of the top three illegal ivory markets in the U.S. (and the U.S. is second only to China as a market for illegal ivory, making Hawaii an important market for global trafficking of ivory and other wildlife products).
Mr. Harris has either not read the bills currently moving through the Legislature or is intentionally misleading the public has to the impact of the bills. The current bills have no provenance requirement. The wide swamping exemptions currently in the bill, which expressly include cultural exemptions, musical instruments, education, research, museums, bona fide antiques and other large categories of common sense, reasonable areas were developed with stakeholders just for the reason Mr. Harris supposedly wrote this piece – so the bills target the black market.
Registration processes have been widely rejected locally and nationally for the financial burden they would place upon state agencies, and Mr. Harris surely knows that. A registration is a poison pill.
If Mr. Harris does not fact have a large collection of ivory with documentation showing that it is over 100 years old, as already required under federal law, then the current bills would have no impact on him. This would also be the case for the many legal antique collectors and individuals who own ivory throughout Hawaii.
The opposition to these bills has been overwhelming from people who trade in the black market. These are local business owners who willingly take part in an illicit and illegal wildlife trade. It is a sad reality that Hawaii has become a hub for this terrible activity. These bills only make illegal on a state level what is already illegal at a federal level – allowing state coordination with federal agencies. A widely commonplace practice throughout the islands, particularly on natural resource issues.
The lack of state support in enforcement has led to a flourishing wildlife trade in Hawaii, as recent evidence shows.
Stopping the wildlife trade in Hawaii is long overdue. It seems rather shameful for the “endangered species capitol of the world” to also be the United States’ most unregulated hub of the illegal ivory trade. What an embarrassment that is for all of us who call Hawaii home.
Mahalo for your astute comments.