STATEMENT BY THE ANTIQUE SCRIMSHAW COLLECTORS ASSOCIATION
IN RESPONSE TO SEPTEMBER 9, 2019 HUMANE SOCIETY OF THE UNITED STATES BLOG AND ABC NEWS PRINT AND DIGITAL ARTICLE
REGARDING AN EFFORT TO INFLUENCE IVORY RESTRICTION LEGISLATION
(Senate Bill 496 and House Bill 772) PENDING IN MASSACHUSETTS LEGISLATURE
October 12, 2019
IN RESPONSE TO SEPTEMBER 9, 2019 HUMANE SOCIETY OF THE UNITED STATES BLOG AND ABC NEWS PRINT AND DIGITAL ARTICLE
REGARDING AN EFFORT TO INFLUENCE IVORY RESTRICTION LEGISLATION
(Senate Bill 496 and House Bill 772) PENDING IN MASSACHUSETTS LEGISLATURE
October 12, 2019
The Antique Scrimshaw Collectors Association (ASCA) shares in the passionate desire to preserve and protect endangered species. However, we also think it is our duty to identify efforts to influence and enact over-reaching ivory ban laws. Many of these legislative efforts would have no practical impact on reducing poaching that primarily occurs in Africa and Asia or protecting endangered species. There also may be unintended consequences on the legitimate antiques business and priceless collections of scrimshaw in museums such as the New Bedford Whaling Museum and Nantucket Whaling Museum.
On September 9, 2019, the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) published a blog authored by its President and CEO Kitty Block, coinciding with a scheduled vote on Massachusetts State Bill 496 and House Bill 772. These pieces of legislation propose specific measures to protect elephants and rhinoceros from poaching and to restrict illegal ivory trade in Massachusetts.
The blog purported to show an undercover investigation by HSUS and Humane Society International (HSI) that claimed to have unearthed evidence of a thriving market for elephant ivory products in Massachusetts. It was headlined as an expose, positioned and timed to illustrate the position of HSUS and HSI just as Massachusetts lawmakers were about to consider a bill that would ban the ivory trade within the state. The blog was subsequently published in print and digital format by ABC News.
The blog claimed that HSUS investigators visited the New Bedford Whaling Museum’s Annual Nautical Antiques Show in May 2019 where they “found sellers from both within and outside Massachusetts peddling ivory objects, including figurines, walking canes, dollhouse furniture, tools and food canisters.” The blog further charged that HSUS investigators purportedly asked the sellers if they had anything that verified the age and origin of the items, and “many said they did not.” It was further claimed that this “discovery” was concerning because “federal law prohibits interstate trade in ivory items from recently poached elephants and without documentation it is impossible to tell if the ivory was brought into the United States legally.”
The HSUS investigators, who indirectly claimed expertise in determining the material and age of the items for sale, said that they had found elephant ivory products for sale by five sellers at the show. The images of the artifacts provided in the blog and subsequent ABC coverage are not of high enough quality to determine their age or origin, but the HSUS implication is that these pieces were new and freshly smuggled into the U.S. and Massachusetts and made available for sale at the show. This is simply untrue.
ABC News affiliates ran the blog as an expose on September 9, 2019, without fact-checking the HSUS allegations or giving the New Bedford Whaling Museum prior opportunity to respond or to correct misinformation.
So, HSUS and ABC News conveyed unvetted, inaccurate, and potentially harmful disinformation about what they purport is a “thriving ivory trade in Massachusetts,” implying that several dealers at the May 2019 Nautical Antiques Show at the New Bedford Whaling Museum were purposefully breaking the law and, by inference, the museum had knowingly allowed this to occur at a museum-sanctioned event.
ASCA does not operate the Nautical Antiques Show. The New Bedford Whaling Museum, an independent non-profit organization where the antiques show was held, has already responded to this expose in written and digital format. However, many of the dealers and collectors present at the show are current members of ASCA. The Nautical Antiques Show is a prestigious event, held in the highest esteem, well attended and viewed as an event where both dealers and collectors feel confident that items traded there are fully vetted and verified as being authentic and fully within all state and federal restrictions regarding legal sale.
Some ASCA members may have been libeled by the expose, so ASCA has interviewed all dealers cited in the HSUS blog and subsequent ABC News briefs. Each dealer has firmly denied being interviewed as claimed by HSUS and each vehemently denies offering for sale any forms of ivory that are restricted by existing Massachusetts or federal statute.
It is ASCA's position that the New Bedford Whaling Museum and the dealers were defamed to promote an over-zealous animal rights agenda. ASCA agrees with the tenets of nationwide concerns—and legislative efforts—to protect animals that are endangered. We do not think that applying additional layers of restrictions for antiques (100+ years old) does anything to protect species that are today endangered.
It is perfectly legal by federal law to trade legitimately antique elephant ivory; identification of such pieces is not a difficult procedure. Regardless, there is no legal requirement to provide a paper provenance for a piece to a potential buyer.
In ASCA's view, the timing of the HSUS blog and the ABC News coverage of it was no coincidence. Rather, it was a brazen attempt to unfairly influence and broaden the scope of the proposed ivory ban legislation in Massachusetts to negatively affect the collection of legitimate marine mammal antiques.
There have been numerous attempts to pass ivory restriction legislation in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts that provides no exemptions for legitimate and lawfully acquired antiques that contain all or parts of bone and ivory from marine mammals (whale, walrus, etc.). This argument has been brought to the state legislature three times since 2014; each time, bills have not passed because of the failure of each bill to include specific clauses that provide exemptions for legitimate antiques containing marine mammal artifacts that reside in personal and museum collections.
Upon the failure of the last bills, the Massachusetts legislature welcomed a revised bill that focused on the protection of species currently endangered through unscrupulous poaching of elephants and rhinoceros. These bills, originally crafted to address these threats, remain pending. In ASCA’s view, the HSUS blog and subsequent ABC coverage of its claims are an attempt to broaden the scope of the legislation, which could have serious negative impact on the collections of legitimate marine mammal antiques.
To date, the Massachusetts legislature has successfully achieved middle ground, providing ample opportunity for the protection of endangered species and priceless collections of lawful and legitimate antiques. To ASCA’s best knowledge, many Massachusetts legislators, while being unwilling to pass bills without exemption for proper and vetted antiques, have nonetheless provided a clear path for parties to present bills that are strictly linked to the issue of eliminating poaching of elephants and rhinoceros and any other currently endangered species.
ASCA herein states that no one within its ranks wants to see elephants, rhinoceros, or any other endangered species be further threatened. The exposes referred to herein seem to be yet another effort to overzealously solve a perceived problem in Massachusetts that may not exist. To spread the reach of currently pending legislation into areas that may not protect a single elephant or rhinoceros will only endanger the interpretation of our region’s unique history.
ASCA points attention to recent legislative efforts in Connecticut, where legislators have pulled together representatives of both ivory ban bill sponsors and the legitimate antiques trade. Both sides have agreed to work together to craft legislation that achieves the goals of both parties.
To our knowledge, each time ivory ban bills have been concluded in Massachusetts, it has been noted that the Federal Endangered Species Act of 1973 has been largely followed in Massachusetts and elsewhere and that its restrictions provide ample protection for marine mammals. Although such bills may provide some with a sense of protecting innocent animals, restricting the trade of legitimate antiques accomplishes nothing because it has no impact on protecting today’s—or even tomorrow’s—endangered species.
ASCA is fully behind protective measures that may have a positive impact on further restricting the poaching of elephants and rhinoceros. None of us wishes harm to endangered animals. We believe all legitimate antiques dealers and collectors should work tirelessly to comply with federal and state regulations.
On September 9, 2019, the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) published a blog authored by its President and CEO Kitty Block, coinciding with a scheduled vote on Massachusetts State Bill 496 and House Bill 772. These pieces of legislation propose specific measures to protect elephants and rhinoceros from poaching and to restrict illegal ivory trade in Massachusetts.
The blog purported to show an undercover investigation by HSUS and Humane Society International (HSI) that claimed to have unearthed evidence of a thriving market for elephant ivory products in Massachusetts. It was headlined as an expose, positioned and timed to illustrate the position of HSUS and HSI just as Massachusetts lawmakers were about to consider a bill that would ban the ivory trade within the state. The blog was subsequently published in print and digital format by ABC News.
The blog claimed that HSUS investigators visited the New Bedford Whaling Museum’s Annual Nautical Antiques Show in May 2019 where they “found sellers from both within and outside Massachusetts peddling ivory objects, including figurines, walking canes, dollhouse furniture, tools and food canisters.” The blog further charged that HSUS investigators purportedly asked the sellers if they had anything that verified the age and origin of the items, and “many said they did not.” It was further claimed that this “discovery” was concerning because “federal law prohibits interstate trade in ivory items from recently poached elephants and without documentation it is impossible to tell if the ivory was brought into the United States legally.”
The HSUS investigators, who indirectly claimed expertise in determining the material and age of the items for sale, said that they had found elephant ivory products for sale by five sellers at the show. The images of the artifacts provided in the blog and subsequent ABC coverage are not of high enough quality to determine their age or origin, but the HSUS implication is that these pieces were new and freshly smuggled into the U.S. and Massachusetts and made available for sale at the show. This is simply untrue.
ABC News affiliates ran the blog as an expose on September 9, 2019, without fact-checking the HSUS allegations or giving the New Bedford Whaling Museum prior opportunity to respond or to correct misinformation.
So, HSUS and ABC News conveyed unvetted, inaccurate, and potentially harmful disinformation about what they purport is a “thriving ivory trade in Massachusetts,” implying that several dealers at the May 2019 Nautical Antiques Show at the New Bedford Whaling Museum were purposefully breaking the law and, by inference, the museum had knowingly allowed this to occur at a museum-sanctioned event.
ASCA does not operate the Nautical Antiques Show. The New Bedford Whaling Museum, an independent non-profit organization where the antiques show was held, has already responded to this expose in written and digital format. However, many of the dealers and collectors present at the show are current members of ASCA. The Nautical Antiques Show is a prestigious event, held in the highest esteem, well attended and viewed as an event where both dealers and collectors feel confident that items traded there are fully vetted and verified as being authentic and fully within all state and federal restrictions regarding legal sale.
Some ASCA members may have been libeled by the expose, so ASCA has interviewed all dealers cited in the HSUS blog and subsequent ABC News briefs. Each dealer has firmly denied being interviewed as claimed by HSUS and each vehemently denies offering for sale any forms of ivory that are restricted by existing Massachusetts or federal statute.
It is ASCA's position that the New Bedford Whaling Museum and the dealers were defamed to promote an over-zealous animal rights agenda. ASCA agrees with the tenets of nationwide concerns—and legislative efforts—to protect animals that are endangered. We do not think that applying additional layers of restrictions for antiques (100+ years old) does anything to protect species that are today endangered.
It is perfectly legal by federal law to trade legitimately antique elephant ivory; identification of such pieces is not a difficult procedure. Regardless, there is no legal requirement to provide a paper provenance for a piece to a potential buyer.
In ASCA's view, the timing of the HSUS blog and the ABC News coverage of it was no coincidence. Rather, it was a brazen attempt to unfairly influence and broaden the scope of the proposed ivory ban legislation in Massachusetts to negatively affect the collection of legitimate marine mammal antiques.
There have been numerous attempts to pass ivory restriction legislation in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts that provides no exemptions for legitimate and lawfully acquired antiques that contain all or parts of bone and ivory from marine mammals (whale, walrus, etc.). This argument has been brought to the state legislature three times since 2014; each time, bills have not passed because of the failure of each bill to include specific clauses that provide exemptions for legitimate antiques containing marine mammal artifacts that reside in personal and museum collections.
Upon the failure of the last bills, the Massachusetts legislature welcomed a revised bill that focused on the protection of species currently endangered through unscrupulous poaching of elephants and rhinoceros. These bills, originally crafted to address these threats, remain pending. In ASCA’s view, the HSUS blog and subsequent ABC coverage of its claims are an attempt to broaden the scope of the legislation, which could have serious negative impact on the collections of legitimate marine mammal antiques.
To date, the Massachusetts legislature has successfully achieved middle ground, providing ample opportunity for the protection of endangered species and priceless collections of lawful and legitimate antiques. To ASCA’s best knowledge, many Massachusetts legislators, while being unwilling to pass bills without exemption for proper and vetted antiques, have nonetheless provided a clear path for parties to present bills that are strictly linked to the issue of eliminating poaching of elephants and rhinoceros and any other currently endangered species.
ASCA herein states that no one within its ranks wants to see elephants, rhinoceros, or any other endangered species be further threatened. The exposes referred to herein seem to be yet another effort to overzealously solve a perceived problem in Massachusetts that may not exist. To spread the reach of currently pending legislation into areas that may not protect a single elephant or rhinoceros will only endanger the interpretation of our region’s unique history.
ASCA points attention to recent legislative efforts in Connecticut, where legislators have pulled together representatives of both ivory ban bill sponsors and the legitimate antiques trade. Both sides have agreed to work together to craft legislation that achieves the goals of both parties.
To our knowledge, each time ivory ban bills have been concluded in Massachusetts, it has been noted that the Federal Endangered Species Act of 1973 has been largely followed in Massachusetts and elsewhere and that its restrictions provide ample protection for marine mammals. Although such bills may provide some with a sense of protecting innocent animals, restricting the trade of legitimate antiques accomplishes nothing because it has no impact on protecting today’s—or even tomorrow’s—endangered species.
ASCA is fully behind protective measures that may have a positive impact on further restricting the poaching of elephants and rhinoceros. None of us wishes harm to endangered animals. We believe all legitimate antiques dealers and collectors should work tirelessly to comply with federal and state regulations.
|
STATEMENT ON IVORY PROHIBITION AS RELATED TO ANTIQUE SCRIMSHAW
The Antique Scrimshaw Collectors Association consists of collector, dealers, and auction houses whose interest is the free exchange and study of the art of scrimshaw, the predominantly 19th-century whalemen’s folk art of engraving on and producing utilitarian articles from sperm whale teeth, baleen, and other encountered material in their global travels. Until the third quarter of the 19th century, whale oil represented illumination and lubricant for the world. Spermaceti oil from the head case of the sperm whale produced the finest candles. Baleen, malleable and flexible, was the plastics of the times. The whaling industry was a major commerce for the fledgling United States. Scrimshaw was a means to deter boredom and the long journey to and from New England to the Pacific whaling grounds. Whales may not be encountered for weeks or even months. Whaleships had a larger crew than was necessary to run the ship, render the oil, and store the barrels. The men were necessary for the whaleboats that chased and captured the whales. On board, there was much free time between whales and the necessary chores of the ship. Scrimshaw represented mementos of their trade, gifts for friends and love ones at home, and also for trade with one another. The articles of scrimshaw were quite remarkable. They ranged from simple, primitive engravings on a tooth to a swift with scores of moving joints, turned bone and teeth, and intricate inlays to construct an implement to wind yarn. The great majority of scrimshaw was anonymous lacking authorship, date, or location. Until the 1960s, those who lived on the coasts, particularly New England, primarily collected scrimshaw. When President John F. Kennedy became an antique scrimshaw collector, the popularity escalated and prices rose logarithmically. Today, prices range from hundreds to hundred of thousands of dollars. Prior to the establishment of the Endangered Species Act, Mammal Protections Act, or CITES regulations, antiques scrimshaw was bought, sold, or traded without need for documentation. Much scrimshaw collections were passed down through many generations of a family without documentation. The great majority of authentic antique scrimshaw today lack the documentation required by the present proposed regulations that would render them illegal and without value in commerce. Not a single whale has ever been killed to produce scrimshaw. The material of scrimshaw was a byproduct of the industry. With the moving definition of antique, within five or six years, all genuine scrimshaw will be classified as antique. All mammalian teeth, including that of man, are ivory, consisting of variable amounts of enamel, cementum, and dentine. Most have characteristic patterns that make them identifiable. More than twenty years ago, Stuart M. Frank, Ph.D., formerly Director of the Kendall Whaling Museum and Senior Curator of the New Bedford Whaling Museum, began the study of scrimshaw and is the acknowledged expert in this field. His publications are scholarly treatises on the subject. He formed the Scrimshaw Forensics Laboratory® and the Scrimshaw Forensics Panel at the New Bedford Whaling Museum, which is able to authenticate and certify genuine scrimshaw. The proposed legislation unfairly punishes antique scrimshaw collectors, dealers, and auction houses and criminalizes their ownership with regulation that in retrograde fashion demands documentation never asked for in their original obtainment. In addition, the illegality virtually makes their holdings worthless without due compensation. No one of conscience wants to see the extinction of the elephant or rhinoceros. However, a sweeping prohibition on all ivory commerce in the United States will likely have little effect, if any, on elephant and rhinoceros poaching in Africa. Until the traditional appeal of ivory to Asians, the agricultural nuisance of elephants to the African subsistence farmers, the corruption of the local African governments, and the realization that ivory control rather than prohibition is the solution to this problem, those African countries that practice ivory prohibition will continue to see a decline in their elephant populations. All the proposed ivory ban in the United States will do is deprive American citizens of their constitutional rights to due process and just compensation, deprive small businesses from income, and relegate a vibrant cultural and historic artifact worthy of intense study to a museum curiosity. This legislation, if passed as proposed, will result in litigation that will take years and millions of taxpayer dollars to adjudicate. The Antique Scrimshaw Collectors Association believes that genuine antique scrimshaw (1) can be authenticated and certified, (2) represents objects of cultural and historic importance, especially to the State of Massachusetts where the majority of 19th century whaling originated, and (3) has never been responsible for the death of a single whale. To prohibit its trade and commerce is unfair, unconstitutional, and unconscionable. |
OTHER VOICES RECENTLY PUBLISHED
In April 2017, the Cape Cod Antiques Dealer Association, in consultation with Matt Gilmore of U.S. Fish and Wildlife/Law Enforcement, published a clarification to help its members understand, interpret, and make decisions to conform with regulations currently in place in Massachusetts for the buying, selling and collecting of antique artifacts containing—in all or part—marine mammal ivory and bone. Click here to read the document. * * * * * * * * * * * * * A statement by James Russell, President of the New Bedford Whaling Museum, regarding ivory legislation pending in Massachusetts was published on April 12, 2015. Russell says that the proposed law unfairly targets scrimshaw and antiques, pitting art collectors against animal rights protectors. Speaking for the museum's board, he urges lawmakers to "find the common ground that protects an individual's legal assets while championing a worthy cause," making recommendations to "(1) maintain the intensity of the bill's focus on the illegal sale in the U.S. of elephant and rhino ivory; (2) protect the legal assets of Massachusetts citizens; and (3) provide a roadmap to authenticate antique ivory." Click here to see the article in its entirety. * * * * * * * * * * * * * An article in the May 2015 issue of Maine Antiques Digest discusses new legislation regarding banning ivory that has been introduced in at least 14 states. The article states, "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 copying and pasting other states' bills. Major differences do exist among the states." The article goes on to delineate the legislation proposed in each state and its status as of press time. Click here to read the full article. |