General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsU.S. ivory ban makes musician cancel Winnipeg audition (or, Musicians gunning for elephants?)
An Edmonton musician studying in New York City says worries over a U.S. ban on African elephant ivory forced him to cancel an audition with the Winnipeg Symphony.
Taddes Korris uses a bow tipped with ivory to play his double bass and worries his expensive bow could be confiscated if he crosses the border.
“When you come to a concert or performance, you want to be at your A game,” he said. “I don't think anyone wants to take a risk when it comes to these fantastic bows and instruments.”
An executive order from U.S. President Barack Obama banning the importation of elephant ivory came into effect as a way to stop the slaughter of African elephants.
Jan Urke, a double bass player with the Edmonton Symphony Orchestra, says the ban could jeopardize the Cleveland Symphony’s upcoming trip to Edmonton.
...
Korris says it can be impossible to provide that proof and he says that documentation can only get instruments through certain airports in the United States which can complicate the routing of flights back to Canada.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmonton/u-s-ivory-ban-makes-musician-cancel-winnipeg-audition-1.2609434
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
The Straight Story
(48,121 posts)The ban on trading in Ivory in U.S., which restricts commercial sales of African elephant ivory, has been in place for almost 40 years. However a recent ruling is affecting some Rochester-area music businesses.
The new federal regulations now prohibit all sales of elephant ivory, with few exceptions. That means no imports, no exports, no resale without a valid permit for each item.
At his family-owned music shop, Bernunzio Uptown Music, John Bernunzio says he will no longer be able to sell an instrument made at the turn of the last century.
"The white trim is ivory, the tuners are ivory, the buttons are ivory...this is a five thousand dollar guitar, can't sell it."
http://wxxinews.org/post/new-ivory-sale-regulations-impacting-local-music-stores
dipsydoodle
(42,239 posts)Banjos made before 1900 often had ivory tailpieces and tuner buttons too. Maybe the magic date is 1899 given that JB has used a 1901 Martin as an example ? I notice John's also got an F & C Imperial on his website which is definitely pre-1899 , they parted company in 1890, and that's listed as having an ivory tailpiece. :shrug
pipoman
(16,038 posts)And if you can't definitely prove it, it is banned.
dipsydoodle
(42,239 posts)or where the maker died before then. http://www.mugwumps.com/AmerInstMkr.html
pipoman
(16,038 posts)Who is a concert violinist with one of the largest and most respected Symphony Orchestras in the country plays a Stradivarius. The instrument doesn't have ivory, the bow does. It would be impossible for him to verify the age of the bow through documentation. I hadn't considered the effect of this order on his world tours...
DanTex
(20,709 posts)verifying the authenticity of the objects they purchase.
Jenoch
(7,720 posts)Response to pipoman (Reply #5)
pipoman This message was self-deleted by its author.
Lizzie Poppet
(10,164 posts)The requirements regarding documentation are virtually impossible to satisfy for antique pieces...it will most likely no longer exist.
The Straight Story
(48,121 posts)New proposed federal regulations banning the import and export of ivory are striking a cord with local music shop owners.
"It won't put me out of business," said Kenneth Sullivan. "But, it makes things difficult."
Sullivan owns Sullivan Violins on East Avenue in Rochester.
Under the new regulations, Sullivan said he wouldn't be able to ship any bow made with an ivory tip out of state.
"Bow sales are an important part of our business. I don't know what the percentage of that would be. But it's a significant amount of money."
http://www.rochesterhomepage.net/story/d/story/local-impacts-to-new-ivory-regulations/36809/bHxxhxc1HUyCgGlb98uCYg
pipoman
(16,038 posts)Until at least the mid 20th century millions of everyday items had ivory adornments both functional and decorative.
pipoman
(16,038 posts)who stated their undying support for this nonsense in yesterday's thread are conspicuously missing from this thread...
Jgarrick
(521 posts)thus denying them the opportunity to reflexively post "F--k the NRA!".
catbyte
(34,376 posts)
Jgarrick
(521 posts) indeed...
Lonusca
(202 posts)Trajan
(19,089 posts)FUCK THE NRA ....
DanTex
(20,709 posts)can't be bothered to certify the legality and authenticity of their ivory antiques. Of course, there's also the fact that these musicians didn't say anything nearly as dumb as accusing Obama of doing this intentionally as back-door ban on musical instruments.
pipoman
(16,038 posts)Sympathizer with the ridiculous ban concept in yesterday's thread. Just a bunch of people pretending that this is only about verification, or that ivory has been illegal for 100+ years, or that this has no financial impact on anyone except 1% ers, or that this will have any effect whatsoever on elephant poaching, or that there arent millions of items with ivory components that have historical significance affected, therefore no problem.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)I guess it's possible that the very same thought processes that lead someone to support the NRA in the first place would also make people not able to understand how domestic ivory trade impacts the endangerment of elephants and rhinos. But I think it's just as likely that those people simply are going to agree with what the NRA says.
pipoman
(16,038 posts)Think of nothing else. You do know that this op has nothing to do with the NRA or guns? Nor does this article. ..
http://www.themagazineantiques.com/news-opinion/the-market/2014-02-24/banning-ivory/
Or this one...
http://mobile.nytimes.com/2014/03/21/arts/design/new-limits-on-ivory-sales-set-off-wide-concerns.html?referrer=
Or any of the hundred or so articles that come up on a google search before anyting about guns or the NRA come up. Keep pretending, its entertaining..not becoming. .
DanTex
(20,709 posts)It's not very complicated. The domestic ivory trade has repercussions in terms of smuggling and poaching. This why you don't see many non-NRA DUers coming to the defense of collectors and merchants who can't be bothered to certify their ivory.
I do admit, I'm not much or a reader of "Antiques Magazine". I did read this NYT editorial about the ivory trade, and given that environmental groups are supportive, and that plenty of thought by people who know more about this than me has gone into the policy, it seems like a good idea.
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/18/opinion/banning-ivory-sales-in-america.html
Oh, and yes, this OP has a lot to do with NRA. The parenthesized title is a direct call out of the previous NRA thread, and the DUer who posted it is part of the pro-gun crowd. Like I said last post, it might just be coincidence that the NRAers here on DU are the ones leading the opposition to this bill (maybe the "pro-gun progressives" aren't so progressive after all), but my guess is that the NRA's statement has something to do with it.
pipoman
(16,038 posts)Stirs the civil liberation in me, I own a couple and have no intention of getting more. The historical antiquities world is a 40 year passion for me. I have written numerous paid articles and interviews for several major antiquities publications. Am a certified expert in a couple of areas. I have acquired collections and curated a local museum and have taught classes on the subject. The effect of this ban will be enormous if the administration doesn't rethink it.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)Still, it's hard to miss the striking correlation between pro-gun DUers and DUers who are loudly protesting this particular environmental law. Is it likely that they are all antique aficionados? IMO many are just heeding the NRA's call.
The thing is, a lot of the arguments against this law seem to have no understanding of how regulations on the secondary market can affect smuggling and poaching. Like I said, it's not that complicated. The less certification that is required for domestic trading in ivory goods, the easier it is for smugglers to pass newly poached ivory for an antique. Is this really mind-boggling? Then why are people saying dumb things like this: "The "fucking idiots" here are the people who think this sort of regulation on antique ivory pieces will do fuck-all to help elephants today".
I mean, do people really not understand that the purpose isn't to make life difficult for musicians, it's to make life difficult for people who would like to pass new ivory for old? Once we agree on that, it's just a question of where to draw the line. As with most things there are tradeoffs. Like I said above, a lot of environmentalists don't think these regulations go far enough -- they think that even with these added requirements, it will still be too easy and profitable for smugglers.
Fawke Em
(11,366 posts)Geez.
Jgarrick
(521 posts)DanTex
(20,709 posts)Fawke Em
(11,366 posts)Duh.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)For 50+ years? We have an antique, belonged to my grandmother. It likely goes to 1900, should we get rid of it because of the ivory in the face? Will that bring back that extremely long gone Elephant?
Some rules meant to protect modern day elephants make little sense when it comes to antiques. I expect these bows, in time, to become as rare, and as valuable as a Stradivarius. Which reminds me, under these laws your border protection agents could take that violin as well, since the wood used is also currently endangered.
And the reason for the "bitching" is that certifying them is very difficult, and that is on purpose.
Do what you wish with that information, but a few orchestras are thinking twice about coming to the US.
But hey, when everything looks like a nail...
DanTex
(20,709 posts)can sell newly poached ivory by claiming that it is some kind of antique. So there needs to be some kind of balance.
If you can certify that you have a 100 year old antique, then you have no problem. If you can't, then what's to stop someone else from claiming their ivory is also 100 years old?
As with most regulations, there is a balance to be reached. If there weren't endangered species involved, we wouldn't even be talking about this.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)And it was her mothers? I guess that is the part you are missing. Sat in my mother' table for 50+ years! and at my grand mothers for at least another 45. It was a gift from my grand father.
And as far as officials are concerned that ancient ivory is new. That is the attitude they take, and by their definition, we are criminals. Says the one who has never hunted. So it is not just about guns.
As to the bows, they are making it extremely difficult as well...woods, yup, so technically speaking a priceless Stradivarius could be taken at the border.
Yes, we need balance, but as the law is written, many folks like myself who have inherited these antiques are criminals. That is the part you are missing. Oh and I have no interest in getting any ivory. I want the species protected, before that canard goes out as well.
Oh and trust me, destroying that doll is not bringing any elephants back. (And for all I know it could be walrus ivory)
DanTex
(20,709 posts)Sorry, though, the government isn't treating you like criminal. It also doesn't make the person who previously bought the ivory -- when it was legal -- into a criminal. Ease off on the hyperbole.
They just require certification if you want to sell ivory to anyone else. It's not illegal to own, or to pass down to future generations. But if you want to sell it, you need to get it certified. Doesn't really seem like to much to ask, in light of the extinction threats that elephants and rhino's are facing.
Speaking of extinction, I notice your post has completely ignored the fact that if no certification is required, then a smuggler can easily pass a new ivory for old. Which is they typical strategy for anyone who has ever opposed any kind of environmental regulation: go on endlessly about the inconvenience while completely ignoring the realities that make regulations necessary. Or for that matter, any regulation whatsoever. The world is full of regulations which would be unnecessary if everyone where honest and law-abiding. Ivory smuggling? Not your problem. I get it.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)And it is not hyperbole.
I want regulations. But I want intelligent regulations with intelligent enforcement.
Have an excellent day.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)Particularly since nothing you are doing is being made illegal, the use of the term "criminal" here is perplexing. I get that you think the certification process is too burdensome. A good way to state this would be "the certification process is too burdensome".
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)pipoman
(16,038 posts)the controversy is that this could lead to the destruction of historical objects through the inability to sell or trade them to others who understand and appreciate them.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)it's all about the guns. You see, the NRA issued a forceful denunciation of this policy, because there are some guns with ivory decorations, and so obviously this is just another attempt by Obama to ban guns. Yes, really.
And, as usual, whenever St LaPierre says "jump", the rank and file say "how high". Which means that, somewhat bizarrely, DU's own team NRA are now crusading for the cause of ivory merchants and collectors who don't want to be bothered to certify that their antiques are actually antiques and not illegally poached ivory.
pipoman
(16,038 posts)
MicaelS
(8,747 posts)It's about stupid laws which are solely designed to make a political point while making potential, or actual criminals, out of Americans.
People should not have to "prove" they're not a criminal. You have heard of the "presumption of innocence", correct?
And I feel the same way about those laws designed to "protect" rare woods, and thus making criminals out of muscial instrument makers, or those who own them.
These laws remind me of the evil Redleg Officer from The Outlaw Josey Wale. "Doin good ain't got no end."
DanTex
(20,709 posts)BTW, this law doesn't make a criminal out of anyone for owning anything. It just prevents people from buying and selling ivory products without certifying the legality and authenticity of the ivory. Without such rules, smugglers can easily pass poached ivory for antique ivory. And we know this because that's what's happening now.
Paladin
(28,254 posts)Thanks a lot, there, Mr. Korris. If the stringed instrument world didn't know how desirable elephant ivory was as a component, they damned sure do, now. How nice of you to open or expand the market----"My bow's better than yours is, because mine has real elephant ivory in it." Asshole.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)
Marrah_G
(28,581 posts)
yellowcanine
(35,699 posts)To me it makes more sense to put in place easier ways to authenticate the pieces in question. Taking away a fifty year old bow from a musician is not going to save any elephants.
Marrah_G
(28,581 posts)Perhaps that would be a good option for those already in circulation.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)And I will add, getting them certified is extremely difficult on purpose.
By the way, what is used these days for scrimshaw...is cattle bone. I wonder if that could be a decent sub? Especially not for world class musicians.
Paladin
(28,254 posts)....if it's honest-to-God that much better and desirable, then the demands of highly competitive musicians will probably impact the elephant population. What is needed is some solid proof that ivory is or isn't that much of a performance enhancer. As a group, instrumentalists are a pretty liberal bunch (just ignore Charlie Daniels over there in the corner), and I would hope they would do the right thing---but they're all human (again excepting Charlie Daniels)......
joeybee12
(56,177 posts)tusks pulled out...he might want to try a little harder to get that authenticity and shut up his bitching and moaning.
yellowcanine
(35,699 posts)of ownership back to certain dates he could be issued a certificate clearing the item - kind of like a passport. Many musicians would have photographs etc showing them using particular instruments - or in some cases, third party affidavits could be utilized as provenance. Ivory smuggling is a serious concern, but some common sense should apply as well.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)Here's what the regulation does.
--Prohibit Commercial Export of Elephant Ivory: All commercial exports will be prohibited, except for bona fide antiques, certain noncommercial items, and in exceptional circumstances permitted under the Endangered Species Act.
--Significantly Restrict Domestic Resale of Elephant Ivory: We will finalize a proposed rule that will reaffirm and clarify that sales across state lines are prohibited, except for bona fide antiques, and will prohibit sales within a state unless the seller can demonstrate an item was lawfully imported prior to 1990 for African elephants and 1975 for Asian elephants, or under an exemption document.
--Clarify the Definition of “Antique”: To qualify as an antique, an item must be more than 100 years old and meet other requirements under the Endangered Species Act. The onus will now fall on the importer, exporter, or seller to demonstrate that an item meets these criteria.
--Restore Endangered Species Act Protection for African Elephants: We will revoke a previous Fish and Wildlife Service special rule that had relaxed Endangered Species Act restrictions on African elephant ivory trade.
--Support Limited Sport-hunting of African Elephants: We will limit the number of African elephant sport-hunted trophies that an individual can import to two per hunter per year.
http://www.doi.gov/news/pressreleases/interior-announces-ban-on-commercial-trade-of-ivory-as-part-of-overall-effort-to-combat-poaching-wildlife-trafficking.cfm
As with Obamacare, a lot of the "horror stories" aren't going to check out. Sure, it's an inconvenience to have to certify the authenticity and legality of ivory antiques, but the law seems pretty reasonable given the consequences of smuggling. Some environmentalists in fact think it didn't go far enough.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)On purpose.
I suppose they could try cow bone for not world class performers. But for world class performers there has to be a way to make the process easier. He s not the first musician I hear this from. It is not that there is not a process, there is one, but the hoops are incredible tough to meet.
I expect these bows to become as rare as Stradivarius, which ironically could be taken away by border protection, (they are certified, insurance companies do that, and they are that valuable to allow a guy with a gun and power trip...).
I wonder if the orchestra's legal dept. (yeah I am assuming they have one, which might be a bad assumption) could help artists? But this is not the first complaint. Some orchestras are rethinking American tours btw. Some of these bows are already as valuable as the string instruments and over 200 years old.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)Surely you don't mean "on purpose in order to make life difficult for musicians". The "purpose" for making it hard is to make it difficult for poachers and smugglers.
Of course, it shouldn't be impossible to certify, there needs to be some reasonable process. But the basic thinking behind the regulation is sound.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)That is a nightmare. One musician with the Mexico national orchestra will not tour the US. He tried, he gave up after ten months because of how difficult the process is. He will tour Canada, and fly direct. He will tour Europe, the US is off his list until he can cert that bow, which under current implementation he knows he will not.
The law is well intended, it is the implementation. They make it so difficult musicians are throwing up arms, and scratching the US...orchestras are considering that too.
Oh his bow is 150+ years old. It is valued in the tens of thousands of dollars, high 5 figure, low six. I don't blame him, one iota.
We need to revise how we certify these pieces, both for the sake of the animals and the musicians who have these beautiful pieces.
And even American guitar companies are coming afoul of it, and it is the implementation.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)But hopefully we can also agree for the need for some kind of certification process.
Inkfreak
(1,695 posts)A ban that affects ivory already in circulation such as instruments is not good. Attempts made to paint this as an NRA only issue is absurd. And shows as much. But those with agendas never want to delve into discussions about these matters. As it would show their extreme bias.
I am not now or never have been an NRA member.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)Just sayin'...
Inkfreak
(1,695 posts)Just sayin..
tammywammy
(26,582 posts)I had a beautiful mother of pearl bow. Buy another bow of good craftsmanship with good wood and hair and sans ivory.
mainer
(12,022 posts)That's what I was told when I went bow shopping in Italy.
tammywammy
(26,582 posts)
Ohio Joe
(21,755 posts)Fucking idiots with bullshit excuses... Fuck him and his "A game".
Lizzie Poppet
(10,164 posts)But bows make a huge difference, yes. Huge. High end bows cost as much as high end violins (excepting outliers like Strads and other Cremona instruments of that period). They're that critical, and that varied from one to another.
Moreover, you get very used to the performance characteristics of a particular bow (and bow+violin combination...how they work together). For the sort for challenging material a professional will encounter, you can't just pick a bow off the rack and expect to play properly.
The "fucking idiots" here are the people who think this sort of regulation on antique ivory pieces will do fuck-all to help elephants today. Want to help save elephants (and rhinos)? Start by helping educate insecure middle aged asshats in China who think they need some bullshit placebo concoction to get a stiff dick.
mainer
(12,022 posts)But if a musician plays best with a certain bow, and it just happens to be an old bow with ivory in it, he can't just switch to another bow and play as well.
I recently bought a bow in Cremona, and the difference in performance is breathtaking. Luckily it doesn't have ivory in it, but I can see why a musician wouldn't want to perform abroad with anything but the one bow he loves.
Throd
(7,208 posts)"Start by helping educate insecure middle aged asshats in China who think they need some bullshit placebo concoction to get a stiff dick."
Violin bows and old-timey pistol grips aren't driving the current elephant slaughter.
rrneck
(17,671 posts)pipoman
(16,038 posts)Accomplishing such a vast database will be a huge problem, imo. Literally tens of millions of items exist made from or adorned with completely legally obtained ivory. Things ranging from grandma's earrings to massive sculptures.
rrneck
(17,671 posts)I don't have any more of a ready solution to the registration of items containing ivory than the registration of firearms.
Maybe there could be a grace period where people with items that they know will be moved from place to place (like musical instruments or antique shows) can register them. But if you don't register grandma's earrings keep at home and your mouth shut.
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)