Ashley McAvey has been thinking about Vermont’s role in the trade of ivory for over a decade, and about illegal poaching in Africa for much longer.
In 2016, McAvey — an activist who lives in Shelburne — helped get a proposed ban on ivory trade in front of the Legislature. It wasn’t passed. She hopes this year will be different.
H.99 is now sitting on Gov. Phil Scott’s desk after being passed by both the House and the Senate. It would ban trade in ivory and certain other animal parts within Vermont. The idea is that, if demand goes down, endangered species will gain some protection.
For McAvey, this legislation is better than the 2016 proposal because it is more comprehensive and includes more endangered species, such as sea turtles, tigers, giraffes, pangolins and whales. In total, 16 species are listed.
One important exception would allow continued sale of antiques with an attached animal part weighing less than 200 grams. Call it the piano exception. The ivory keys on a piano weigh less than 200 grams. Other musical instruments share the exemption, as do guns and knives containing ivory or other animal parts.
The bill would not go into effect for 18 months to provide an opportunity for people to sell items lawfully.
Antiques are defined as items over 100 years of age, which McAvey said lines up with legislation already passed in other states. “When these state movements happen, they’re only as effective as the consistency within the states,” McAvey said.
Federal legislation covers only national import, export and interstate trade, leaving each state responsible to set rules for trade within their borders. Eleven other states have passed legislation similar to H.99, some with fewer or no exceptions. If this bill becomes law, Vermont will be 12th. While Vermont doesn’t have a big trade in ivory or other animal parts, it does have some, primarily at auctions and antique stores.
The Humane Society has been pushing for the legislation. Barry Londeree, state director for the Humane Society of the United States, said the organization focused initially on ports of entry, such as New York, New Jersey and California, then broadened it out.
The new Vermont law would have a relatively small impact, he said; “We know our markets are going to be one of the smaller in the country.” But even a small market contributes to demand, and McAvey says Vermont will be taking an important step.
“When I can go to a store in Williston and buy ivory, yes, it does have something to do with Vermont. We are complicit with this trade as long as we are allowing it,” said McAvey. She noted that some Vermont antique dealers have already refused to sell ivory because of moral objections.
The state bans on ivory trade are bipartisan. Republican Gov. Chris Christie of New Jersey was the first to sign the ban into law, in 2014; New York followed suit shortly after, and in 2016 Vermont could have been the third state — but the proposal stalled in the Legislature.
“I think we’re late in doing this,” said Brenna Galdenzi of Stowe, president of Protect Our Wildlife, who has been backing the ivory ban since 2015. “In the wake of climate change and habitat destruction and illegal poaching, these animals are under a huge threat.”
But not everyone agrees that the time is right. Sen. Joe Benning, R-Caledonia, voted against the bill this year. Although he agrees with the bill’s goal, he thought it should have been delayed until January, so the state could focus on the pandemic. Benning has some constitutional concerns.
“I did not believe this was ready for prime time,” he told VTDigger.
“Our constitution requires that when the state legislature takes an action which deprives an individual of their property they are supposed to be fairly compensated,” said Benning. “There’s no element in this bill to do that.” If the bill goes into effect, Vermonters would still have 18 months to sell their property if they wish, and the bill does not call for confiscation of these items.
There has also been discussion about how much it would cost to enforce a ban. In 2016, the Department of Fish and Wildlife estimated that the legislation proposed at that time would cost around $1,200. Galdenzi points to the low cost that states like New Hampshire have incurred. McAvey agrees that there would be minimal fiscal impact.
For her part, McAvey has been studying these issues and efforts to ameliorate them after encountering the “poaching crisis” in Zimbabwe when she traveled there as a 16-year-old. She learned that the demand for animal parts in global markets, including the United States, was a driving factor and went on to study the topic as an undergraduate and graduate student at Yale.
McAvey said the bill is important because of “what we’re saying to the nation and, in fact, to the world.” Closing the domestic market, she said, will have no negative effect, but it will make a big statement, adding, “That’s what Vermont should be doing.”
