California representative introduces bill to strengthen ban on the sale of ivory

No Gravatar

Toni G. Atkins gets a Pack of Compassion Award for this effort. The following is a full release from the speaker of the assembly’s office:

“” “”

Speaker Toni G. Atkins Introduces Bill to Protect Elephants and Rhinos from Poachers

SACRAMENTO–In response to the global wildlife crisis in which an average of 96 elephants are being slaughtered daily for their ivory in Africa, Assembly Speaker Toni G. Atkins today introduced AB 96 to close loopholes that prevent the effective enforcement of existing California law prohibiting the sale of ivory. Senator Ricardo Lara is the Principal Co-author of the bill.

“The slaughter of elephants for their tusks and rhinos for their horns is as senseless as it is cruel,” said Speaker Atkins (D-San Diego). “California recognized that and enacted a law almost 40 years ago to end the ivory trade here, but that law needs strengthening in order to be effective. AB 96 closes the loophole that allows the illegal ivory trade to continue to flourish and adds real enforcement teeth to the law so California can do our part to end the slaughter.”

“Elephants and rhinos are being slaughtered and mutilated at an unprecedented rate and driven to extinction due to demand for their tusks and horns,” said Senator Ricardo Lara (D-Bell Gardens). “If we are serious about protecting endangered species and ensuring that they will be here for future generations to appreciate, California must take a decisive step in stopping, once and for all, the sale or trade of ivory and rhinos horns.”

International, federal and state laws are all being strengthened to protect iconic species from cruelty and extinction. The states of New York and New Jersey recently enacted strong prohibitions on intra-state ivory and rhino-horn commerce and the federal government has proposed strengthened ivory trade and import regulations.

In a new report commissioned by the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), Elephant Ivory Trafficking in California, USA, the investigator examined more than 1,250 ivory items offered for sale by 107 vendors in Los Angeles and San Francisco. He found that up to 90% of the ivory for sale in Los Angeles and approximately 80% in San Francisco was likely illegal under California law—much of it advertised as antiques and/or crafted to look older so it would appear legal, though the pieces were more likely from recently-killed elephants. Additionally, the incidence of what appears to be ivory of recent manufacture roughly doubled from approximately 25% in 2006 to about 50% in 2014.

AB 96 would prohibit a person from purchasing, selling, offering for sale, possessing with intent to sell, or importing with intent to sell elephant ivory or rhinoceros horn, except as specified under very limited educational and scientific circumstances, and would make this prohibition enforceable by the Department of Fish and Wildlife.

The bill would make a violation of this provision a misdemeanor subject to specified graduated criminal penalties.  In addition to the specified criminal penalties, the bill would authorize the department to impose a civil penalty of up to $10,000 for a violation of this provision or any rule, regulation, or order adopted pursuant to this provision.

AB 96 is supported by a host of community, environmental, and animal protection groups including the NRDC, The Humane Society of the United States/Humane Society International, Wildlife Conservation Society, California Zoo & Aquarium Association, Oakland Zoo, and the Asian Pacific Alliance for Wildlife & Sustainability. Additionally, nearly a dozen state lawmakers including wildlife policy committee chairs in both the Assembly and the Senate have already signed on as co-authors of AB 96.

The provisions of AB 96 would become operative on July 1, 2016.

What others are saying:

“We are grateful to Speaker Atkins and Senator Lara for pursuing closure of the loophole in California’s decades-old ivory ban that has allowed this pernicious trade to flourish in our state,” said Jennifer Fearing, a consultant with The Humane Society of the United States and Humane Society International. “Californians don’t support trade here in products that put elephants and rhinos in jeopardy of cruelty and extinction.”

“It’s shocking how much ivory is being sold in California. Up to 90% of the ivory being sold in Los Angeles and 80% in San Francisco is likely illegal, according to an independent study commissioned by NRDC, with much of it being altered to look older so that it will appear legal,” said Elly Pepper, an NRDC wildlife advocate. “Too much ivory is slipping through the cracks. It’s time for California to do more to protect the lives of elephants, and we are thrilled to see the California legislature take this huge step.”

Said John Calvelli, WCS Executive Vice President for Public Affairs and Director of the 96 Elephants campaign: “The Wildlife Conservation Society and the 96 Elephants campaign praises Speaker Atkins and Senator Lara for their leadership in moving toward passing a statewide ban on ivory. We are driving these magnificent animals toward extinction across Africa unless we stop the killing of an estimated 96 elephants each day, stop the trafficking and stop the demand for ivory. As long as demand for ivory remains high and enforcement efforts are low, the legal trade will continue to serve as a front for criminal syndicates. A California ban on ivory sales is an important step forward in this global effort to save elephants.”

“Research shows that Asian Pacific Americans are among the strongest supporters of conservation and environmental protection. On behalf of Asian Pacific Americans everywhere, the Asian Pacific Alliance for Wildlife & Sustainability (APAWS) is proud to support Speaker Toni Atkins’ AB 96 to close down illegal ivory trafficking in California that contributes to the cruel global decimation of elephants and other precious wildlife,” stated Judy Ki, chair of APAWS.

“” “”

PACK MENTALITY BLOG: Compassion - teamed with Science and Logic

5 thoughts on “California representative introduces bill to strengthen ban on the sale of ivory

  1. It is already illegal to traffic new ivory in the state of California. The new proposed law makes it illegal toi own, trade or sell anything with ivory on it. Old pianos, jewelry, chess pieces, etc. This is a redundant law and turns law abiding citizens into criminals for possessing a family heirloom. Might sound good at first glance, but a total waste of time and money!!!

  2. You apparently failed to read the bill.

    It is the possession “with intent to sell” that is against the law. – http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201520160AB96

    And there are clear exceptions to the law:
    “” “”
    (3) Ivory or rhinoceros horn that is part of a musical instrument, including, but not limited to, a string or wind instrument or piano, and that is less than 20 percent by volume of the instrument, if the owner or seller provides historical documentation demonstrating provenance and showing the item was manufactured no later than 1975.
    (4) Ivory or rhinoceros horn that is part of a bona fide antique and that is less than five percent by volume of the antique, if the antique status is established by the owner or seller of the antique with historical documentation demonstrating provenance and showing the antique to be not less than 100 years old.
    “” “”

    And should you know that poaching is a major funding source for terrorist organizations.
    And you should know that piano keys are made from other materials now –
    https://www.thedodo.com/billy-joels-incredibly-convinc-596673544.html

    I am trying to spread the message of compassion for animals and education. I’m glad you are coming back to blog.
    We need to counter the information being spread by the anti-science and anti-animal sides.

  3. Actually, there’s a loophole in California law that allows anything created before 1977 to be sold. So a lot of “antique” ivory being sold in California is actually illegal — crafted to look older so that it appears legal under California law.

    This new law would close that loophole and implement a near-total ban. It does have a few exceptions though: transfers to legal heirs, musical instruments comprised of less than 20% of ivory or rhino horn, and bona fide antiques comprised of less than 5% of ivory or rhino horn.

    http://www.nrdc.org/media/2015/150107a.asp

  4. Kimiko,
    Thank you for noting this information for the discussion.

    It is a shame that some people are still purchasing ivory products. The consumer end of the issue is just as evil as those who are selling the ivory and killing the elephants.

    There are no real, justified needs for buying ivory products.

  5. Why on earth ban mammoth ivory sales at the same time (which this bill would do)?
    1. Mammoths are extinct. We don’t ban sales of other fossils (and why should we?)
    2. Mammoth ivory represents an EASILY differentiated (don’t take my work for it, check USF&W website) alternative to elephant ivory. It is so easy to differentiate between the two materials that mammoth ivory is freely traded everywhere in the world except India, which put it’s ban in place before the USF&W service published the method of differentiation (around 1990). Since that guidance was published, NO country in the world has banned trade in mammoth ivory.
    3. There is NO evidence, or even a credible logical explanation for why mammoth ivory market affects demand for elephant ivory, but very credible evidence and logic that in fact it diminishes it. If you want to ban everything that could be (ignorantly) mistaken for elephant ivory, why not ban trade in bone, Micarta, or any other material with a smooth white polishable surface? (BTW, these materials are ALSO easily differentiated from elephant ivory by visual inspection, but why let that stop you?)

    This proposed ban (on mammoth ivory) makes NO sense. It represents a government “taking” without any rational basis, and no possible benefit to society. It is a poorly considered, misdirected knee-jerk response to a troubling issue, and if it has ANY impact on the elephant situation it will be a negative one. This is the kind of pandering stupidity that gives liberalism a bad reputation.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *