DakotaDocMartin
~ Elite 1000 Member ~
The Advisory Council on Wildlife Trafficking is holding a meeting on March
20, 2014 in Washington, D.C. People who will not attend need to submit
written comments about the ban by this Monday, March 17. I am strongly
urging people to e-mail written comments to the Council to create a record
of the devastating impact this ban will have not only on small businesses
and individual collectors, but ultimately on elephants.
The record is now filled with information and misinformation from people who want to see the domestic ivory trade killed. If your views are not expressed at this meeting, they will be missing from the government's record, only making it more difficult for later challenges if USFWS promulgates the Draconian rules most people expect.
All comments must be delivered no later than March 17 to Mr. Cade London,
Special Assistant, USFWS International Affairs, by email at
cade_london@fws.gov<mailto:cade_london@fws.gov> (preferable method of
contact); by U.S. mail at 4401 North Fairfax Drive, Room 110, Arlington, VA
22203; by telephone at (703) 358-2584; or by fax at (703) 358-2276.
Even if USFWS ignores what you have to say, it is critical that you get your
comments on record by the deadline. If we succeed in getting large numbers
of people to write in, then politicians will take note. Even if only a
modest number of people write, then your interests will be part of the
record in subsequent comment periods and/or litigation.
*****************
<Insert Date>
<Insert your name
and address here>
VIA EMAIL: CADE_LONDON@FWS.GOV
Cade London
Special Assistant, USFWS International Affairs
Advisory Council on Wildlife Trafficking
4401 North Fairfax Drive, Room 110
Arlington, VA 22203
RE: My Comments on the National Strategy for Combating Wildlife Trafficking & Commercial Ban on Trade in Elephant Ivory and its implementation by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Dear Mr. London,
I support the goal of stopping the barbaric and criminal poaching of elephants in Africa, Asia, or anywhere else in the world. Because of the important artistic, practical, historical and economic value of ivory, I am also in favor of preserving the trade of domestic ivory in the United States. Both goals can be accomplished, and I want to provide the Advisory Council with information and ideas to make this happen.
<Briefly describe who you are and what your interest is in ivory.>
Current Laws Already Isolate the US Market from Poached Ivory
In the USFWS September 2012 Fact Sheet, U.S. Efforts to Control Illegal Elephant Ivory Trade and Internal Markets, the Service summarized US laws already in effect and efforts to stop poaching of Asian and African elephants. The report described the Service’s seizures of illegally imported ivory between 1989 (the year the ban on African elephant international trade went into effect) through 2007 and concluded that “we do not believe that there is a significant illegal ivory trade into this country.†The report further noted that “[t]he U.S. Public and other international travelers often unwittingly purchase and import ivory products in to the United States only to have them confiscated at the ports. We hope to reduce global ivory traffic by informing international travelers of the domestic and international laws controlling the movement of ivory through outreach efforts such as this fact sheet.â€
The Service’s conclusions were entirely consistent with independent studies conducted by international organizations tasked with wild life conservation and monitoring & fighting illegal ivory trade. Most recently, in the December 2013 report “Status of African elephant populations and levels of illegal killing and the illegal trade in ivory: A report to the African Elephant Summit†by the International Union for Conservation of Nature, African Elephant Specialist Group, they found that while elephant poaching in Africa is on the increase, the trend is closely associated with increases in consumer spending in China, the world’s largest consumer of illegal ivory. On the other hand, the relationship does not hold for ivory markets in Europe, the USA or Japan, nor for countries know to be transit points in the ivory trade chain (Malaysia, Philippines, Thailand or Viet Nam). When further discussing trade routes for poached elephant ivory and showing maps of those routes with estimates of illegal ivory transferred, the report does not show any illegal trade involving the United States after 2008.
The United States is not contributing to elephant poaching in any meaningful way because current laws in the U.S. are working. When the 1989 ban on exporting and importing African ivory went into place, it allowed the domestic trade of ivory that was already in the United States (“pre-ban ivoryâ€) to continue. The export limitations discouraged big businesses from using ivory in products, but small businesses have continued to make, repair, embellish and trade pre ban ivory along with antique ivory. People who dealt regularly with ivory were very aware of the regulatory structures, as reflected the small number of seizures and tiny amounts of illegal ivory confiscated in the United States in recent years from dealers or businesses. Also, pricing confirms the stability of ivory trade in the United States. Domestically, the cost of raw ivory has been around $250 per pound, whereas in China, where illegal ivory flourishes, ivory can cost as much as $1500 per pound. Given the price discrepancy, it is obvious where illegal poachers will peddle their ivory.
If not from poachers, where does raw ivory come from in the United States? There are a variety of sources including a few dealers who carry documented pre-ban ivory, museums with excess ivory in stock, estate sales of people who collected ivory, and a small amount from people who legally hunt elephants on safari with government permission from stable populations and who fund conservation efforts in African countries. With the ample supply of ivory already in the U.S., there simply has been no need to risk smuggling illegal ivory. For this reason, the US has successfully isolated its domestic market from illegal poaching.
Enormous Costs of Domestic Ivory Ban Outweigh Non-Existent Benefit
Notwithstanding the success the U.S. has had in keeping poached ivory out of its domestic market, the regulations that USFWS are considering would kill it.
There are well over 3000 small businesses in the United States that use, embellish, repair, restore, or provide services involving ivory. Guitar and banjo repair shops, piano restorers and movers, silversmiths, religious product dealers, antique dealers, tool & knife makers, gunsmiths, engravers, jewelers, art galleries, museums – all of these entities will be penalized by denying them materials for their trade or products that they rely upon and have nothing to do with elephant poaching in Africa. Galleries and museums will not be able to charge admission to exhibits containing ivory. Artisans and craftspeople who have dedicated their lives to ivory carving will become obsolete or criminals, losing their livelihoods. And that is just on the business side.
On the consumer side, millions of people who own items that contain ivory will be severely limited with what they can do with it. Musicians will not be able to repair or refurbish their instruments. Art collectors, from high end Nitsuke collectors to people trading collectibles on eBay, will see the value of their collections plummet to $0. People who lose family members will have difficulty resolving estates. Cultural and religious items from statues to rosary beads will become contraband. All of these items made from ivory taken from elephants that died decades if not generations ago will drop out of the legal stream of commerce without preventing a single elephant from dying in Africa.
Worse than that, if regulations are adopted that require paperwork to prove the age or pedigree of ivory when the government knows full well such paperwork never existed because it was or is unnecessary to create under then-existing or current law, people will disrespect the law. If antique dealers and collectors need to prove items were imported through ports even though the items came to this country before there were requirements to use certain ports to import ivory, their cynicism with the government will be well justified. If regulations are jammed through without giving the law-abiding people they will punish adequate time to respond or due consideration of their views, then the people’s frustration and anger will predictably erupt.
Recommendations
Instead of antagonizing law abiding citizens engaged in trade in the United States, the government should focus its efforts where they belong – on border enforcement and affecting demand in China. To the extent tourists carry undocumented ivory across borders, the USFWS should follow its own counsel from its 2012 Fact Sheet. To the extent the government believes poaching to be an international crisis as stated in Executive Order 13648, then the now well-known NSA data monitoring and spying efforts should be shared with foreign governments to intercept trade routes, capture poachers, and condemn Asian traders who unscrupulously deal in poached ivory. Those are far more direct and effective ways of affecting illicit Chinese trade and saving elephants’ lives.
Domestic Ivory Ban Will Increase the Slaughter of Elephants
One final thought. Dr. Daniel Stiles, a world renowned expert on African elephants and a prominent member of conservation organization, has recently concluded that the initiatives under consideration in the United States will dramatically increase elephant poaching instead of decreasing it. Crushing the domestic market in the United States will make the legal supply of ivory disappear. As ivory becomes rarer, prices will increase, giving poachers an even greater incentive to kill elephants for their valuable tusks. It would be catastrophic to destroy the lives of innocent artisans, ruin the finances of legitimate businesses, deprive people of lifelong collections, and in the process reward poachers for slaughtering elephants.
Very truly yours,
<YOUR SIGNATURE>
20, 2014 in Washington, D.C. People who will not attend need to submit
written comments about the ban by this Monday, March 17. I am strongly
urging people to e-mail written comments to the Council to create a record
of the devastating impact this ban will have not only on small businesses
and individual collectors, but ultimately on elephants.
The record is now filled with information and misinformation from people who want to see the domestic ivory trade killed. If your views are not expressed at this meeting, they will be missing from the government's record, only making it more difficult for later challenges if USFWS promulgates the Draconian rules most people expect.
All comments must be delivered no later than March 17 to Mr. Cade London,
Special Assistant, USFWS International Affairs, by email at
cade_london@fws.gov<mailto:cade_london@fws.gov> (preferable method of
contact); by U.S. mail at 4401 North Fairfax Drive, Room 110, Arlington, VA
22203; by telephone at (703) 358-2584; or by fax at (703) 358-2276.
Even if USFWS ignores what you have to say, it is critical that you get your
comments on record by the deadline. If we succeed in getting large numbers
of people to write in, then politicians will take note. Even if only a
modest number of people write, then your interests will be part of the
record in subsequent comment periods and/or litigation.
*****************
<Insert Date>
<Insert your name
and address here>
VIA EMAIL: CADE_LONDON@FWS.GOV
Cade London
Special Assistant, USFWS International Affairs
Advisory Council on Wildlife Trafficking
4401 North Fairfax Drive, Room 110
Arlington, VA 22203
RE: My Comments on the National Strategy for Combating Wildlife Trafficking & Commercial Ban on Trade in Elephant Ivory and its implementation by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Dear Mr. London,
I support the goal of stopping the barbaric and criminal poaching of elephants in Africa, Asia, or anywhere else in the world. Because of the important artistic, practical, historical and economic value of ivory, I am also in favor of preserving the trade of domestic ivory in the United States. Both goals can be accomplished, and I want to provide the Advisory Council with information and ideas to make this happen.
<Briefly describe who you are and what your interest is in ivory.>
Current Laws Already Isolate the US Market from Poached Ivory
In the USFWS September 2012 Fact Sheet, U.S. Efforts to Control Illegal Elephant Ivory Trade and Internal Markets, the Service summarized US laws already in effect and efforts to stop poaching of Asian and African elephants. The report described the Service’s seizures of illegally imported ivory between 1989 (the year the ban on African elephant international trade went into effect) through 2007 and concluded that “we do not believe that there is a significant illegal ivory trade into this country.†The report further noted that “[t]he U.S. Public and other international travelers often unwittingly purchase and import ivory products in to the United States only to have them confiscated at the ports. We hope to reduce global ivory traffic by informing international travelers of the domestic and international laws controlling the movement of ivory through outreach efforts such as this fact sheet.â€
The Service’s conclusions were entirely consistent with independent studies conducted by international organizations tasked with wild life conservation and monitoring & fighting illegal ivory trade. Most recently, in the December 2013 report “Status of African elephant populations and levels of illegal killing and the illegal trade in ivory: A report to the African Elephant Summit†by the International Union for Conservation of Nature, African Elephant Specialist Group, they found that while elephant poaching in Africa is on the increase, the trend is closely associated with increases in consumer spending in China, the world’s largest consumer of illegal ivory. On the other hand, the relationship does not hold for ivory markets in Europe, the USA or Japan, nor for countries know to be transit points in the ivory trade chain (Malaysia, Philippines, Thailand or Viet Nam). When further discussing trade routes for poached elephant ivory and showing maps of those routes with estimates of illegal ivory transferred, the report does not show any illegal trade involving the United States after 2008.
The United States is not contributing to elephant poaching in any meaningful way because current laws in the U.S. are working. When the 1989 ban on exporting and importing African ivory went into place, it allowed the domestic trade of ivory that was already in the United States (“pre-ban ivoryâ€) to continue. The export limitations discouraged big businesses from using ivory in products, but small businesses have continued to make, repair, embellish and trade pre ban ivory along with antique ivory. People who dealt regularly with ivory were very aware of the regulatory structures, as reflected the small number of seizures and tiny amounts of illegal ivory confiscated in the United States in recent years from dealers or businesses. Also, pricing confirms the stability of ivory trade in the United States. Domestically, the cost of raw ivory has been around $250 per pound, whereas in China, where illegal ivory flourishes, ivory can cost as much as $1500 per pound. Given the price discrepancy, it is obvious where illegal poachers will peddle their ivory.
If not from poachers, where does raw ivory come from in the United States? There are a variety of sources including a few dealers who carry documented pre-ban ivory, museums with excess ivory in stock, estate sales of people who collected ivory, and a small amount from people who legally hunt elephants on safari with government permission from stable populations and who fund conservation efforts in African countries. With the ample supply of ivory already in the U.S., there simply has been no need to risk smuggling illegal ivory. For this reason, the US has successfully isolated its domestic market from illegal poaching.
Enormous Costs of Domestic Ivory Ban Outweigh Non-Existent Benefit
Notwithstanding the success the U.S. has had in keeping poached ivory out of its domestic market, the regulations that USFWS are considering would kill it.
There are well over 3000 small businesses in the United States that use, embellish, repair, restore, or provide services involving ivory. Guitar and banjo repair shops, piano restorers and movers, silversmiths, religious product dealers, antique dealers, tool & knife makers, gunsmiths, engravers, jewelers, art galleries, museums – all of these entities will be penalized by denying them materials for their trade or products that they rely upon and have nothing to do with elephant poaching in Africa. Galleries and museums will not be able to charge admission to exhibits containing ivory. Artisans and craftspeople who have dedicated their lives to ivory carving will become obsolete or criminals, losing their livelihoods. And that is just on the business side.
On the consumer side, millions of people who own items that contain ivory will be severely limited with what they can do with it. Musicians will not be able to repair or refurbish their instruments. Art collectors, from high end Nitsuke collectors to people trading collectibles on eBay, will see the value of their collections plummet to $0. People who lose family members will have difficulty resolving estates. Cultural and religious items from statues to rosary beads will become contraband. All of these items made from ivory taken from elephants that died decades if not generations ago will drop out of the legal stream of commerce without preventing a single elephant from dying in Africa.
Worse than that, if regulations are adopted that require paperwork to prove the age or pedigree of ivory when the government knows full well such paperwork never existed because it was or is unnecessary to create under then-existing or current law, people will disrespect the law. If antique dealers and collectors need to prove items were imported through ports even though the items came to this country before there were requirements to use certain ports to import ivory, their cynicism with the government will be well justified. If regulations are jammed through without giving the law-abiding people they will punish adequate time to respond or due consideration of their views, then the people’s frustration and anger will predictably erupt.
Recommendations
Instead of antagonizing law abiding citizens engaged in trade in the United States, the government should focus its efforts where they belong – on border enforcement and affecting demand in China. To the extent tourists carry undocumented ivory across borders, the USFWS should follow its own counsel from its 2012 Fact Sheet. To the extent the government believes poaching to be an international crisis as stated in Executive Order 13648, then the now well-known NSA data monitoring and spying efforts should be shared with foreign governments to intercept trade routes, capture poachers, and condemn Asian traders who unscrupulously deal in poached ivory. Those are far more direct and effective ways of affecting illicit Chinese trade and saving elephants’ lives.
Domestic Ivory Ban Will Increase the Slaughter of Elephants
One final thought. Dr. Daniel Stiles, a world renowned expert on African elephants and a prominent member of conservation organization, has recently concluded that the initiatives under consideration in the United States will dramatically increase elephant poaching instead of decreasing it. Crushing the domestic market in the United States will make the legal supply of ivory disappear. As ivory becomes rarer, prices will increase, giving poachers an even greater incentive to kill elephants for their valuable tusks. It would be catastrophic to destroy the lives of innocent artisans, ruin the finances of legitimate businesses, deprive people of lifelong collections, and in the process reward poachers for slaughtering elephants.
Very truly yours,
<YOUR SIGNATURE>
