The House gave a loud voice vote of support Thursday to a bill that would ban the sale of ivory and rhinoceros horn beginning Jan. 1, 2018.
Federal law already restricts the interstate sale of both raw and altered ivory and horn. The House measure would make Vermont the fifth state to prohibit in-state sales.
“If you care about Vermont’s wildlife, you need to care about other wildlife, too,” Rep. Cynthia Browning (D-Arlington) told her House colleagues. “Imagine your most favored species in Vermont,” she said. “Imagine that criminals were coming to Vermont and slaughtering that creature.”
Rep. Jim McCullough (D-Williston) had told lawmakers that elephants and rhinos were threatened and endangered species in large part because of a “well-organized world trade for ivory.” He added, “And you don’t get ivory like you get wool off of a sheep.”
Rep. Kurt Wright (R-Burlington) introduced the bill a year ago after he became acquainted with a Shelburne woman promoting the ban. They became friends, sharing with each other their respective experiences of losing a beloved golden retriever. Based of his friend’s advocacy, Wright decided Vermont should join this movement to try to save elephants and rhinos from the torture and killing required to take their tusks.
Wright usually worries about the effects of state actions on businesses, but he said the House Fish, Wildlife & Water Resources Committee’s version of the bill accommodates most business concerns.
Rep. Harvey Smith (R-New Haven) wasn’t so sure businesses would be unharmed. He asked how the ban would effect his friend who works on pianos.
McCullough said the bill would allow sales of items with fewer than 200 grams of ivory, which mirrors the federal restriction. That weight was picked to accommodate piano keys, McCullough said. He added that piano keys haven’t been made of ivory for more than three decades.
Rep. Mark Higley (R-Lowell) worried about the effect the ban might have on antique dealers.
McCullough said the committee delayed the start date of the ban until 2018 “to give Vermonters this extended opportunity to offload their ivory.”
Rep. Christopher Pearson (P-Burlington) said he had been lobbied hard to support the ban — by his daughter’s pre-school class. He said that when he drops off his child, her classmates keep asking him if he has saved the elephants yet. “I want to go to them tomorrow and say ‘yes’,” he told his House colleagues.
He will be able to say the bill received preliminary approval, with the final vote expected Friday. The bill still needs review and approval by the Senate and the governor before Pearson and the pre-schoolers can declare victory.
Related Stories
Got something to say?
Send a letter to the editor and we'll publish your feedback in print!
THANK YEW! YOU’d think the republicans would be all over saving their mascot, worldwide, nationwide etc.
I’m glad to see that our state representatives are doing such important and relevant work. I’m overjoyed to live in a state that is such a perfect utopia that we have no problems of our own and can afford to spend our time focusing on important issues like this.
Wildlife trafficking, the fourth largest illegal trade in the world, after drugs, counterfeit goods, and human trafficking is an escalating $19 billion a year global crisis that the President has identified as a threat to our national interests. Vermonters realize that as long as we have a free and open ivory trade in this state as we do today, we are part of the problem. How narrow-minded and short-sighted to think that we should not be “wasting our time” with this legislation. How sad. It’s not mutually exclusive, my friend. NY, WA, NJ, and CA knew this. Those states have problems, too, but that didn’t stop them for doing their part to close the trade. And, yes, legal intrastate trade does perpetuate the slaughter, which, by the way, also has a massive human toll– just ask the family of Roger Gower or the over 1,000 families of rangers who have died protecting these iconic species from greed. Please try your best to open your mind and realize that our little actions in this little state really do have consequences. Just because we don’t see them or because we are not directly affected by them means we should ignore the crisis? Thousands of Vermonters think not. http://www.ivoryfreevermont.org #ivoryfreevermont
I concur with Ashley. Yes, wildlife terrorism has been going on for sometime since 2004. Many research, including that of Interpol and our own intelligence community, has found that poaching is a big part of an intricate web of black market commerce that is now funding terrorism through many groups of militia, rebels, and ultimately the big ones like Da’esh and al-Qa’eda. Wildlife trade drives up corruption, poverty, human trafficking, narcotics, and other transnational crimes; not just wildlife crime. This issue is the same throughout the world which affects us all, that wildlife trade funds terrorism. I must confess that the concept is too big to wrap our heads around it so I just refer to it as wildlife terrorism since it terrorizes both wildlife and people worldwide.
https://medium.com/@tusktaskforce/stopping-the-wildlife-trade-is-also-about-saving-people-286e631a9580#.iosi9m8dn
I would fully support this bill were it to have a reasonable antiques exemption. Saving the elephants does not need to lead to the loss of material culture or the seizure of assets.
Up to 90% of so-called antiques are sourced with ivory from recently slaughtered elephants. Even when legitimately 100 years old or older, antique ivory or any ivory in a legal intrastate trade perpetuates the slaughter. Only 10% of illegal ivory is prevented from entering the market. As for a mention of seizure of assets, please do not spread flagrant misinformation. H.297 deals with trade and sale, not one thing to do with seizure of assets.
The vital point is that only 10% of all of the illegal ivory in this country is confiscated at our borders, so a lot of ivory is going to still make it into the U.S. regardless of how tight the federal restrictions are; therefore states need to limit retail sales. In other words, 90% of illegal ivory (largely carved/worked ivory, jewelry, netsuke) is still getting through our borders and into the state marketplace (often marketed as antiques) due to limited enforcement.
Ashely, if I own a valuable piece of antique ivory and it is rendered “worthless” you have effectively seized my assets. That’s not misinformation, that’s the truth.
Federal courts have ruled that commercial value is not the sole value an item possesses and therefore eliminating an item’s commercial value does not constitute a taking. (Andrus v. Allard, 44U.S. 51 (1979)).
Try telling that to the person whose valuable investment not longer has monetary value. There are plenty of poor legal precedents in this country.
I want to save the elephants and rhinos of TODAY.
It would seem that we will have to agree to disagree but I firmly believe that selling/owning/researching/valuing (monetarily and otherwise) objects such as this…
http://www.noordsyantiques.com/webpages/Item7839.html
promotes the arts and furthers education without having a deleterious effect upon today’s elephants.
If you truly want to save elephants and rhinos of today, you would not put a dollar value on ivory on an item sold today. By doing so, even though that animal may have been slaughtered a hundred years ago, you are putting a VALUE on it TODAY. And where there is value there is demand. Where does the demand get met? Slaughter of today’s animals. Ivory does not come from a widget factory in Nebraska. Will a legal ban on sale and trade really work? Will these state bans really help prevent these two species from imminent extinction not to mention the huge human toll? YES. History is proof. The 1989 ban (which was foiled by two separate one-off sales) worked. Before the one-off sales, the ban worked and the global ivory trade collapsed. Shutting down legal trade works. Because of your love of ivory, they are being killed faster than they are able to reproduce. Sorry to say, but this is the fast track to extinction. Enjoy your ivory, cherish it, give it to your grandkids. Promote the arts that way. The days of making a profit from it are over. And with a vote of 135-4 the House has heard from their constituents loud and clear. I see you have much beautiful glass for sale and many other beautiful items. It doesn’t appear that your not selling ivory will significantly hamper your business. Sadly, in the last decade, over a thousand park rangers have been killed by poachers while on duty. That, to me, is a real price to pay.
Ashley, I have no love of ivory, just a love of art and material culture. People who buy and sell antique portraits on ivory and or antique sailor made scrimshaw are buying ANTIQUES. They have no desire to own something new. That’s the point. Further, this has nothing to do with the success of my business. I simply want to preserve cultural artifacts and in a capitalistic society (unfortunately) valueless objects are destined for the dust bin.
Up to 90% of so-called antiques are sourced with ivory from recently slaughtered elephants. Even when legitimately 100 years old or older, antique ivory or any ivory in a legal intrastate trade perpetuates the slaughter.
Dear Lord, you sound like Rubio:) 100% of genuine ivory antiques are made with antique ivory. How does that perpetuate the slaughter? It’s great to have a go-to line and some figures someone has foisted on you but LOOK (please) at a 18th or 19th century watercolor on ivory and tell me how they are the problem?
Distinguishing an early portrait from a recently made one is easy peasy.
http://www.earthisland.org/journal/index.php/eij/article/stiles/
Mr. Stiles very much disagrees with the prohibitionist approach.
Daniel Stiles is a very controversial figure in this debate. His reports have been criticized by leading experts around the world. He is regularly described as being “pro-trade” and his findings are skewed to reflect that belief. He himself even acknowledges that he’s now considered an “outlier” for his pro-trade stance. Please see the following links before you take his words as truth:
http://www.ifaw.org/united-states/news/why-i-lashed-out-nat-geo-against-another-call-more-ivory-trade
http://www.theecologist.org/News/news_analysis/1800368/elephants_are_not_diamonds.html
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2014/08/140829-elephants-trophy-hunting-poaching-ivory-ban-cities/
http://www.pnas.org/content/111/36/13117.abstract
Letter from NJ antique dealer James Castelli
jcastelli@PeoplesStore.net
http://www.PeoplesStore.net
http://www.StoneHouse1814.com in FULL support of H.297 without exemptions:
As The General Manager of one of the largest antique stores in the tri-state area, we are glad to finally see this major issue being taken seriously. We have around 50 dealers on 4 floors in our main building, which has been an antiques center for over 60 years. We also own another Antique Center up the road. The ivory ban did not affect our business since it’s only a small part of sales. We feel it’s awful to sell something in our stores that an innocent elephant was murdered for. The past few years we have noticed more Asian buyers coming in looking for ivory and we want no part of this. We have banned all ivory sales in our stores even before the law passed in New Jersey and now want to partner with you on getting this bill passed to do the same for Vermont and hopefully the same for the United States. Many of the auction houses around us have already banned ivory from their sales and inventory. It’s the ethical thing to do, but we need your help in passing this bill.
The antiques & design industry is about reusing items, making less of an impact on the environment, buying from local designers. The antiques industry is not about murder, torture and the extinction of one of the most docile creatures on the planet. Ivory tusks are theirs, and not ours to sell.
And there are women who think Planned Parenthood should be defunded and African Americans who support Trump. What’s your point?