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!
Try telling that to the person whose valuable investment not longer has monetary value. There are plenty of poor legal precedents in this country.
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)).
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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’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.
THANK YEW! YOU’d think the republicans would be all over saving their mascot, worldwide, nationwide etc.