Maine Antique Digest May 2015

10-A Maine Antique Digest, May 2015

ith the implementation of the

federal law banning the sale of

ivory still unclear, the fight has moved to

the state legislatures. New legislation has

been introduced in at least 14 states; New

York and New Jersey already have ivory

bans in place.

In many instances, the language of the

bills is exactly alike, suggesting that ivory

ban lobbyists have had a hand in crafting

the legislation or that legislators are copy-

ing and pasting other states’ bills. Major

differences do exist among the states. The

definition of “ivory” varies: many states

include narwhals, walruses, and whales,

but others limit it to elephants and mam-

moths. Some states exempt for antiques,

and others do not, and at least one state

would require registering ivory objects

with the state before selling or buying

them.

Here’s what we know as of press time.

Nevada

Nevada Senate Bill No. 398 was in-

troduced on March 17 and prohibits the

sale or transfer of ivory and ivory prod-

ucts. Ivory is defined as “a hard white

substance that is a variety of dentin which

composes the main part of the teeth or

tusks of certain animals, including, with-

out limitation, elephants, hippopotamus-

es, mammoths, narwhals, walruses, and

whales.”

There is a limited exemption for an-

tiques. “A person may sell or offer for

sale, lease, purchase, trade, barter, place

in the stream of commerce” ivory if, the

bill reads, the ivory “is an antique and

(1) The ivory or ivory product within the

antique makes up less than 20 percent by

volume of the antique; and (2) The an-

tique status of the ivory or ivory product

is established by the owner or seller there-

of with historical documentation evidenc-

ing provenance and demonstrating that

the antique is at least 100 years old at the

time of the sale or transfer of possession.”

Musical instruments manufactured be-

fore December 31, 1975, would be ex-

empt from the ban.

The bill is headed to the Committee on

Commerce, Labor and Energy.

Washington

Substitute House Bill 1131 and a com-

panion senate bill were introduced in Jan-

uary in the state of Washington. The bill

will make it illegal to sell, offer to sell,

purchase, trade, barter for, or distrib-

ute any ivory article or rhinoceros horn

product. Ivory is defined as “any tooth or

tusk composed of ivory from an elephant,

whether raw ivory or worked ivory, or

made into, or part of, an ivory article.”

There are exceptions. If the ivory ar-

ticle or rhinoceros horn product “is con-

structed so that the ivory or horn compris-

es less than five percent by volume of the

overall article or product; and is a bona

fide antique that is at least one hundred

years,” it may be bought or sold.

If the ivory is “part of a firearm, sword,

knife, trinket, or musical instrument, in-

cluding string and wind instruments and

pianos, and the ivory or rhinoceros horn

was not acquired in violation of feder-

al law,” it will be legal to buy or sell. A

“trinket” means a “small ornament, piece

of jewelry, small container or other col-

lectible.”

Whales are not part of the bill. Ivory is

defined as “any tooth or tusk composed of

ivory from an elephant.”

The most recent action on the bill was

a public hearing in the House Committee

on General Government & Information

Technology on February 10.

Vermont

Vermont bill H.297, introduced on Feb-

ruary 24, is among the most restrictive.

The bill would “prohibit the import, sale,

offer for sale, purchase, barter, or posses-

sion with intent to sell of any ivory, ivory

product, rhinoceros horn, or rhinoceros

horn product.” There is no exemption for

antiques or musical instruments.

Ivory is defined as “any tooth or tusk

composed of ivory from any animal,

including an elephant, hippopotamus,

mammoth, narwhal, walrus, or whale, or

any piece thereof, whether raw ivory or

worked ivory, or made into, or part of, an

ivory product.”

The bill is currently with the Fish,

Wildlife & Water Resources Committee.

Maryland

Maryland House Bill 713 would pro-

hibit a person from purchasing, selling,

offering for sale, possessing with the in-

tent to sell, or importing with the intent

to sell any ivory or rhinoceros horn. Ivory

is defined as “any tooth or tusk, or any

piece of a tooth or tusk, from any species

of wildlife, including all species of ele-

phant, hippopotamus, walrus, whale, or

narwhal.” There are a few exceptions—

mostly for governmental and scientific

use—but none for antiques.

The bill is doomed. On March 16, the

Judiciary Committee gave it an “unfavor-

able report.”

Hawaii

Ivory could be sold under HB 837 in

Hawaii—as long as the government ap-

proves. The bill would establish a state-

wide registry of ivory and rhinoceros

horn items. Registered items could be

sold, offered for sale, purchased, caused

to be purchased, or possessed with the in-

tent to sell. Ivory is defined as “any tooth

or tusk composed of ivory, or any piece

thereof, whether raw or worked, from any

species of elephant, hippopotamus, mam-

moth, narwhal, and walrus.”

Any person selling any ivory and rhi-

noceros horn objects would first have to

notify the Department of Land and Natu-

ral Resources. Sellers would need to pro-

vide information about the species and

age of each item, documentation demon-

strating that the specific item satisfies the

requirements of the federal Endangered

Species Act of 1973, African Elephant

Conservation Act, Marine Mammal Pro-

tection Act, and the Convention on Inter-

national Trade in Endangered Species of

Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES). Sellers

would need a receipt issued by the de-

partment indicating that the specific ivory

or rhinoceros horn was registered. The

receipt and any related documentation

would travel with the object. Any object

without a receipt would be considered un-

lawful to sell.

There are exceptions, including guns,

knives, and musical instruments with a

composition of ivory or rhinoceros horn

that is less than 20% by volume; ivory

or rhinoceros horn jewelry that can be

identified as Ming’s jewelry, provided

that such jewelry must contain a legible

marking identifying it as Ming’s jewel-

ry (Ming’s, a company founded in 1940,

sold jewelry that is highly collectible; the

last Ming’s store to close was in Honolulu

in 1999); and personal use and possession

of ivory or rhinoceros horn.

The legislation has been referred to

several senate committees.

Rhode Island

Rhode Island bill H 5660 seeks to pro-

hibit the import, sale, purchase, barter, or

possession with intent to sell of any ivory,

ivory product, rhinoceros horn, or rhinoc-

eros horn product. Ivory includes “any

tooth or tusk composed of ivory from

any animal, including, but not limited to,

an elephant, hippopotamus, mammoth,

narwhal, walrus, or whale, or any piece

thereof, whether raw ivory or worked ivo-

ry, or made into, or part of, an ivory prod-

uct.” There is no exemption for antiques.

The bill was due to be heard by the

House Committee of Judiciary on March

17 but was postponed at the request of the

sponsor.

Massachusetts

House Bill 1275, introduced in the Mas-

sachusetts legislature on January 15, would

prohibit the import, sale, purchase, barter,

or possession with intent to sell of any ivo-

ry, ivory product, rhinoceros horn, or rhi-

noceros horn product. Ivory is defined as

“a tooth or tusk composed of ivory from an

animal, including but not limited to, an ele-

phant, hippopotamus, mammoth, narwhal,

walrus, or whale or a piece thereof, wheth-

er raw ivory or worked ivory, or made into

or part of an ivory product.” There is no

exemption for antiques.

The bill would also create the Endan-

gered Elephant and Rhino Conservation

and Education Fund, which would be

used “to increase or expand enforcement

efforts related to the provisions of this

chapter, to develop or increase education

and outreach programs enhancing rhinoc-

eros and African and Asian elephant con-

servation or to provide financial rewards

offered to persons providing information

leading to the arrest and conviction of

persons found to be in violation” of the

law. Fines paid for violations would be

allocated to the new fund.

Illinois

Illinois bill SB1858 was introduced

on February 20. It creates the Ivory Ban

Act, making it unlawful for any person

to import, sell, offer for sale, purchase,

barter, or possess with intent to sell any

ivory, ivory product, rhinoceros horn,

or rhinoceros horn product. Ivory is de-

fined as “any tooth or tusk composed of

ivory from any animal, including, but not

limited to, an elephant, hippopotamus,

mammoth, narwhal, walrus, or whale, or

any piece thereof, whether raw ivory or

worked ivory, or made into, or part of, an

ivory product.”

There’s no exemption for antiques, but

an amendment to the bill would exempt

the ivory or rhinoceros horn if it “is part

of a bona fide antique gun or knife and is

less than 20% by volume of the antique,

and the seller establishes by documenta-

tion that the antique is not less than 100

years old. When the ivory or rhinoceros

horn is part of a musical instrument…that

is less than 20% by volume of the instru-

ment, and the owner or seller provides

historical documentation demonstrating

provenance and showing the item was

manufactured no later than 1975.”

A hearing of the bill was scheduled for

March 26 but has been postponed.

New York

New York already has an ivory ban,

but a bill introduced in the assembly on

March 11 would exempt musical instru-

ments containing ivory or rhinoceros

horn. The ivory volume of the instrument

must be less than 20% and the owner or

seller must provide “historical documen-

tation as the department may require,

demonstrating provenance and showing

the item was manufactured no later than”

1975 or June 30, 2014, if the instrument

contains only mammoth ivory.

New York allows ivory and rhinoceros

horn sales if the object is “part of a bona

fide antique” and the object has “less than

twenty percent by volume of such antique,

and the antique status of such antique is

established by the owner or seller thereof

with historical documentation evidencing

provenance and showing the antique to be

not less than one hundred years old.”

Oregon

Oregon Senate Bill 913

provides that

“knowing purchase, sale, offering for

sale, possession with intent to sell or im-

portation for purchase or sale in this state

of ivory, rhinoceros horn, ivory products

or rhinoceros horn products” is illegal.

Ivory is defined as “all or part of a tusk

or tooth, in raw form or worked form,”

from an elephant, hippopotamus, mam-

moth, narwhal, walrus, or a whale.

A proposed amendment to the original

bill now includes some exemptions for

guns and knives with less than 20% ivory

or “not less than 100 years old”; for mu-

sical instruments “manufactured no later

than January 18, 1990”; certain zoos; and

museums. There is no specific exemption

for other antiques. A public hearing was

held on March 23, and the bill is still with

the Senate Committee on Judiciary.

Connecticut

Connecticut Raised Bill No. 6955

would make it illegal for any person to

“import, sell, offer for sale, purchase,

barter or possess with the intent to sell,

any ivory, ivory product, rhinoceros horn

or rhinoceros horn product.” Ivory is de-

fined as “any tooth or tusk, or any part

thereof, that is composed of ivory from

any animal, including, but not limited

to, any elephant, hippopotamus, mam-

moth, narwhal, walrus or whale or any

piece thereof, regardless of whether such

tooth or tusk is raw ivory, worked ivory

or made into or part of an ivory product.”

Originally there was no exemption for

antiques, but public testimony convinced

lawmakers to add an exemption. Deal-

ers and museum professionals testifying

included Susan L. Talbott, director and

CEO of the Wadsworth Atheneum Mu-

seum of Art; Spencer Gordon of Spencer

Marks, Ltd.; Peter Curran; Elle Shushan;

Jody Blankenship, executive director of

the Connecticut Historical Society; Kevin

Tulimieri; and Arthur Liverant.

Liverant’s testimony read: “…I suggest

that changes be made to the proposed

legislation to accommodate the sale and

trade of ivory art objects created over one

hundred years ago, before many of these

precious items are lost forever. The free

market trade in these objects will allow

for the appreciation and care of these

items that reflect our history and the lega-

cy of Connecticut and America.

“…I have brought two objects that will

help illustrate my point. The first…is a

miniature portrait painted on ivory of a

gentleman from my hometown of Col-

chester. I purchased this item only weeks

ago on eBay from a seller in Tennessee.

Miniature portraits on ivory were paint-

ed by accomplished artists using a single

hair brush to honor and record the subject

for future generations, as photography

records today. This particular miniature

portrait is of Captain Benjamin Day, who

was born in Colchester in 1704, a mere

six years after the founding of our town.

In 1729, he married Margaret Foot, the

daughter of the founder of Colchester. In

May 1747, Benjamin Day was appoint-

ed Lieutenant by Governor Jonathan

Law and this same Connecticut General

Assembly. The Day family continued

to be leaders in Colchester well into the

20th century. This portrait was painted in

1766, and gives historians a little insight

into the life and accomplishments of Cap-

tain Day. If a ban on the trade of ivory ob-

jects were in effect, this portrait may nev-

er have found its way back to Colchester,

and this bit of Connecticut history may

have been lost forever.

“…The second object illustrating my

point is a jewelry box that was original-

ly owned by Marie Gansevoort Melville.

This box was made in 1814 in Boston,

by one of the finest cabinetmakers of the

time. Marie Gansevoort married Thomas

Melville. Together they had a son; we all

know [him] to be Herman Melville, one

of the great authors of American litera-

ture. Consider the romance and history of

this box. To think that it was very proba-

ble that young Herman may have played

with his mother’s valuable treasures is

unmistakable and exciting. The issue here

is the small turned knobs in the interior

compartments which are made of ivory. If

a ban on all ivory was in effect, this trea-

sure may someday be lost forever.”

A substitute bill now with the Environ-

mental Committee would allow the sale

if the ivory is “one hundred years old or

older.”

Florida

Florida Senate Bill 1120 would prohib-

it “the manufacture, sale, purchase, and

distribution of ivory articles and rhinoc-

eros horns.” Ivory is defined as “any item

containing worked or raw ivory from any

species of elephant or mammoth.” Marine

mammals are not defined as ivory.

There is an exemption for antiques. The

Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commis-

sion may issue a certificate allowing the

sale as long as the “ivory article or rhi-

noceros horn is part of a bona fide antique

and is less than 20 percent by volume

of the antique, and the owner or seller

provides historical documentation that

demonstrates provenance of the item and

that the item is at least 100 years old.”

Musical instruments would not fall un-

der the new law if the ivory or rhinocer-

os horn is part of a “musical instrument,

including, but not limited to, a string or

wind instrument or piano, and the owner

or seller provides historical documenta-

tion that demonstrates provenance of the

item and that the item was manufactured

no later than 1975.”

The bill is with the Florida Commit-

tee on Environmental Preservation and

Ivory Fight Moves to the States