Is walrus tusk legal? (Pictures added)

I heard back from the Virginia State F&W people. Lieut. A.B.Fisher says that Virginia state law covers deer antler, but does not mention ivory, so he doesn't know the answer. He gave me a phone contact at the Richmond office of USF&W. Earlier today, at work, I sent a detailed question on this thread to the USF&W folks in Washington, DC. They responded that they were sending it to a person who specializes in this area for an accurate response. They said I should hear back in 3-5 days.
I'll keep you posted.
 
OK, we are getting somewhere now.

I just got off the phone with Agent Dan Roline of the USF&W. He says that all the regulations are concerning commercialization and not personal use. If the tusk was legally bought/sold initially, it is completely legal for a person to use it as he wishes for his personal use. His exact words were, " Whatever he wants to do with it for his own use is legal. He can cut it up and make toothpicks from it as long as he doesn't sell them." He also verified that there is no federal law to his knowledge that restricts the personal use of any legally owned object.

He also said that the photographic provenance I suggested sounded like excellent coverage of any possible complications or accusations at a later date. Say, you went to a knife show wearing the knife, and an agent stopped you and said the knife was illegal ( which would be wrong). The photos would be proof enough.


He agreed that in Alaska, they would be far stricter due to the much higher chance of illegal ivory being "laundered" by claiming it was once legal , but has been modified. Also, the Alaskan district deals with State and Federal laws on Ivory and who can use/modify it. Once it leaves Alaska, it becomes subject just to the Federal control laws, and things are much clearer.

Selling/trading/gifting the knife could be more of a problem, and would require a letter to the USF&W for permission. All provenance would be needed accompanying the request. It would be determined by them as to whether to allow it or not.


I also spoke with an attorney on this subject, and was assured that personal use of a legal object is constitutionally guaranteed.
The commercial use, transport across state lines, broadcast/publication ,etc. may be regulated by federal and state laws, but the U.S. Constitution guarantees that what is legally yours is yours to do with as you please, as long as you break no other laws doing it.
Then he started laughing ,and agreed that this argument is circular, and thus the main focus of many federal cases...and is used by both the defense and the prosecution. Many of the cases before the Supreme Court today deal with who can tell who what they can and can't do.

example - You can legally own a normal shotgun, if you meet the federal and state requirements...but you can't shoot it in your back yard if the local ordinances do not allow the discharge of firearms.

He said that even if it upset someone in Alaska, the owner of a legal scrimshaw tusk can burn it for firewood, if he so pleases.


Hope this clears thing up a tad more.
 
Thanks Stacy, I hope no one thought I was getting upset either way about this discussion, I am not. I'm just relating what I know about the subject to help if I can.

I'm not sure if we are closer to the answer or not, or if we ever will be. What you were given is one persons opinion about the law. Ask another person and you are likely to get another opinion.

As I said , I will stay away from the gray areas of the law, then I won't have to worry about fighting it in court. Others are free to do as they wish.

I wish none of us had to worry about the legality of what we did with our personal property.
 
Mark, Thank you for your patience in answering questions. Based on our experience you are correct.

There are so many uninformed opinions in this thread. I don't know why people reply when they don't know what they are talking about. :thumbdn:

Stacy, you may think you are getting somewhere but you are just getting started. USF&W is just one of the federal agencies involved. Mark already mentioned NOAA. There is also Customs and the Department of the Interior. The fun part is when you talk to representatives of each department and they do not agree with each other! We’ve seen representatives of the same department disagree with a definition of what material is legal! How do you protect yourself when different federal departments disagree with the definition of what it legal?

After spending time talking to: specialists from each department, field agents from each department, federal attorneys and private attorneys, we work to the following guidelines:
• No white walrus ivory EVER!
• No whale products EVER!
• Never cut scrim pieces
• If a deal sounds too good, call the federal authorities

The last point will save you time and frustration. There are unscrupulous people who sell illegal ivory. These people need to go away. There are also ongoing federal stings. If you call the federal authorities about to report an illegal sale and it turn out to be one of their stings, you've build credibility as someone who does not deal with illegal materials.

After the debacle of the Boston show last fall we as a community need to be very aware of how we are perceived by federal authorities. We are on the radar. Are we going to do what we want and go to (or beyond) the edge of the law? Will we choose avoid the gray areas?

I am not overstating when I say I think our future as a community depends on how we answer the question.
 
Just be careful about law interpretations. Just because one authority tells something to someone does not mean that might apply to you. I have seen exactly opposite opinions from the BATF on some subject from different but equal authorities. For example I saw one letter that said antique firearms were 1898 and before and another letter that said modern was 1898 and after. The only safe person was the one the letter was sent to.

California started confiscating all ivory trinkets one time and then was sued by the May Company for confiscating their ivory earrings. The May Co was in the wrong but had deep pockets and the state relented. That does, again, not mean they might relent to Joe citizen at a gun/knife show. Just being technically right might not save you lawyer fees.
 
Stacy is not wrong, he just got different answers to the same questions. I don't think there is any animosity here, or there shouldn't be, we are all friends.

I think we all pretty much want to do the right thing, we just need to know what that is. Sometimes finding out what is the right thing to do is hard. Especially when we are dealing with government agencies.
 
I'm just glad I'm too poor to buy and use it for handle material, solves that problem for now! I think the surest way to move forward is to only buy from reputable dealers like Mark and Chuck (and others not in this thread.)
 
I understand where you are coming from,and I agree that different situations may get different answers.
However, I think you are forgetting that the topic I am addressing is PRIVATE USE of the specific tusk in the OP's question.

Knifemaking businesses, Ivory sellers,Importer/Exporters, and those selling ivory products will always have to be very careful to dot their "I"s and cross their "T"s.

Also, I didn't get the answer from "somebody", I got it from the Federal district agent who administers MMPA in this district. As he said, Alaska and the adjacent districts will have much more problems.

This has been a fun research project, and I think I learned a lot of new things. We have probably covered as much as can be done here, so I'm letting this thread go unless I get some other Federal response.

Mark, thanks for your input from the Frozen 49th.
 
Yes, it does seem the "private use" point gets overlooked. When I was informed about how to provide provenance on ivory, I told the guy I never intend to sell any of my work. He said, "I've heard that before... but some day you'll need supplies or a car payment." Everyone who is in the business seems to naturally fall to the conclusion that everything we make will eventually be for sale. And maybe they know something I don't... but as I told him, I'm never selling my knives. Besides, who would buy them? ;)
 
tryppyr said:
Yes, it does seem the "private use" point gets overlooked. When I was informed about how to provide provenance on ivory, I told the guy I never intend to sell any of my work. He said, "I've heard that before... but some day you'll need supplies or a car payment." Everyone who is in the business seems to naturally fall to the conclusion that everything we make will eventually be for sale. And maybe they know something I don't... but as I told him, I'm never selling my knives. Besides, who would buy them? ;)
Click to expand...

Hi Greg and Stacy, I know we seem to be beating a dead horse here. Let me assure you that I personally don't care what people do with there own things and I am strongly on the personal rights and States rights side of this.

I know we are talking about private use here, I'm talking about private use. We all agree that the wording says you can't sell it, trade it, or gift it. The Federal people I have spoken to explain it much the way Greg did and carry it farther to after the original owner is no longer with us. The knife will be in an estate sale or garage sale or it will be given to someone, all the things you are not allowed to do.

I think the prevailing culture on the protection side is that they do not trust us on the "use" end. The polite way to say they don't trust us is to say "You may change your mind and want to sell it some day"

My Federal guy is not back in the office until the 16th of May, If anyone still wants to talk about it by then I will ask him to be very clear about private use in the lower 48 states, though I am sure I am clear on his stance.

It's not at all surprising to me that we are getting different answers to the same question from different people in the same agency. Thats the problem.

And thank you to Stacy, I think if we talk about these things enough and enough people ask questions about enforcement, we might get definitive answers and maybe a change for the better.
 
I just got off the phone with my Federal guy, I will write down what he said while it is fresh in my mind.

If the walrus tusk remained a native handy-craft it could be bought sold traded etc. any number of times legally.

Once it's altered it's no longer a native handy-craft and cannot be legally bought, sold, traded bartered or given to anyone. The laws governing these things extend throughout the existence of the piece, not just the life of the owner of the piece. Unless someone plans to live in perpetuity or the knife will be buried with him when he dies there is no way around those laws, it cannot be legally willed to someone else. He said the only other thing that could legally be done is it could be surrendered to USF&W service. He said when they get wind of these things at an estate sale or auction they inform the people that it can not be sold and give them the option of taking it home or giving it to USF&W. I asked if the actual leaving of it to a surviving family member was proper. He said no, but probably no one would make a big deal of it. He said that Stacy was not necessarily given the wrong information, only that it was not carried far enough. It's an area that is not covered thoroughly by law and agencies have to wing it, so he advises people not to do it in Alaska or any other state. He also said that they are currently working on regulations to clear all that up. So look for things to get tighter.
 
OK, I just received an answer from Washington,DC and the head office.

Dear Stacy,

Thank you for your inquiry regarding the use of walrus tusks in the manufacture of knives. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's mission is, working with others, to conserve, protect and enhance fish, wildlife, and plants and their habitats for the continuing benefit of the American people.

The Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA - 16 USC 3372) prohibits the take, importation, transport, sale, or the offer to purchase or sell any marine mammal parts and products, including the walrus. The MMPA does contain a limited exemption for marine mammal parts which were taken before December 21, 1972. Thus, if you have evidence establishing the pre-Act status of these walrus tusks, they can be legally possessed and sold. If the walrus tusks are not pre-Act but are authentic native handicrafts - that is, they have been significantly altered from their natural form and have been manufactured into an authentic native handicraft by a Alaska Native - they are also exempt from the prohibitions of the MMPA. These walrus tusks would therefore be lawful to possess and sell if they are either pre-Act or authentic native handicrafts.

Since it appears that the walrus tusk in question is an authentic native handicraft and can be legally possessed, we suggest documenting by whatever means possible that the walrus tusk used in the manufacture of this knife could be legally possessed.

You do not need to submit proof of the legal possession of this walrus tusk to any particular office, unless you are asked to do so.

Thank you for your cooperation in complying with our regulations that help protect fish, wildlife, and plants and their habitats. Please feel free to respond to this message with any further inquiries that you may have regarding this matter.


What I take from this is that you must document any tusk that is currently legal, and make sure you keep a copy of the documentation with the knife made.\
This reply will not satisfy everyone, but it comes from the head office, so it is good enough for me in Virginia. In Alaska and Washington state, i agree extra caution would be wise.
 
Hi Stacy, Glad to see the answer in writing, you should keep that. Also anyone that uses a similar tusk for a similar project should have a copy and keep it. I forwarded your letter and a link to this thread to my USF&W guy up here so he can have a look. In my opinion we should all be getting the same answer no matter where we live. I think we will eventually get consensus.

Thanks again for the follow through.
 
I agree ,totally.
Thank you Mark, for all your communication and input on this thread.
I think anyone using a piece of ivory or mammal product ( beyond the Bovine species ) should keep good records of the source and use of that product. I have a folding file with the papers on most all the ivory I have ever bought. I have never had to produce papers at a show, but could if asked.....it is right in the box under the table.





I'll add some info for general thought. This is from personal experience, and not legal advise, but most of the legal folks I know will fully agree to these general rules:

Attitude is your best friend or worst enemy. If a F&W person asks you a question on a knife ( or a policeman asks you for ID, etc.) you can look them in the eye with a steel glare and say,:
"I'm an American citizen, and I am not doing anything wrong....... I don't have to show you squat."
or
" Good morning, officer, Here is my paperwork/ID/etc.....Is there a problem? "

The first answer will make the LEO immediately dislike you and may lead him/her to go beyond the necessary routine check they started. The second will make you the nice guy, and give them no reason to look farther in many cases. I know a lot of people in these occupations, and they as a rule gauge the persons attitude and reactions far more than the situation.

The same goes for provenance. Try these two scenarios:
You tell an agent that the narwhal handle is over 70 years old, but you don't have any papers.
or
You tell him, "Just a minute.", and take out the copy of an Ebay receipt for a narwhal tusk you purchased from an online seller. The description states that his Dad brought it back from Alaska in 1932. You also have a photo of the stack of handle you cut from the tusk. Your knife certificate for that particular knife also says, " Made form a 1932 Narwhal tusk."

Now, the Ebay receipt and those other items aren't in any way a good provenance, and could be based on false info from the seller....but it would be up to the agent to determine that. With you being up front and providing the source, which you took to be legal, and documenting the product, you are not suspect.


General good advise for anyone, especially if you are selling things:
Keep the receipt from any regulated product....regardless of how weak the provenance is. A signed piece of paper from a neighbor, stating that the elephant tusk you bought at his yard sale was pre-ban is not much, but it is a lot better than nothing. It takes little proof to avoid a problem in many cases. ( Not that things will normally ever go to a trial - but it is amazing how weak a piece of evidence it takes in a trial to prove the defense case.)

It is all in the way you handle yourself and your attitude. Sadly, many of the serious and often fatal situations on the news are caused by the reactions people have to being asked questions by governmental agents.

Final comment:
Yes, as in any walk of life there are good and bad people out there. Some Federal and State agents, LEO's, and other governmental persons can be a$$h@!es....but you adding one more a$$h@!e to the situation will not help things at all. Be the bigger person if needed.
 
bladsmth said:
I agree ,totally.
Thank you Mark, for all your communication and input on this thread.
I think anyone using a piece of ivory or mammal product ( beyond the Bovine species ) should keep good records of the source and use of that product. I have a folding file with the papers on most all the ivory I have ever bought. I have never had to produce papers at a show, but could if asked.....it is right in the box under the table.





I'll add some info for general thought. This is from personal experience, and not legal advise, but most of the legal folks I know will fully agree to these general rules:

Attitude is your best friend or worst enemy. If a F&W person asks you a question on a knife ( or a policeman asks you for ID, etc.) you can look them in the eye with a steel glare and say,:
"I'm an American citizen, and I am not doing anything wrong....... I don't have to show you squat."
or
" Good morning, officer, Here is my paperwork/ID/etc.....Is there a problem? "

The first answer will make the LEO immediately dislike you and may lead him/her to go beyond the necessary routine check they started. The second will make you the nice guy, and give them no reason to look farther in many cases. I know a lot of people in these occupations, and they as a rule gauge the persons attitude and reactions far more than the situation.

The same goes for provenance. Try these two scenarios:
You tell an agent that the narwhal handle is over 70 years old, but you don't have any papers.
or
You tell him, "Just a minute.", and take out the copy of an Ebay receipt for a narwhal tusk you purchased from an online seller. The description states that his Dad brought it back from Alaska in 1932. You also have a photo of the stack of handle you cut from the tusk. Your knife certificate for that particular knife also says, " Made form a 1932 Narwhal tusk."

Now, the Ebay receipt and those other items aren't in any way a good provenance, and could be based on false info from the seller....but it would be up to the agent to determine that. With you being up front and providing the source, which you took to be legal, and documenting the product, you are not suspect.


General good advise for anyone, especially if you are selling things:
Keep the receipt from any regulated product....regardless of how weak the provenance is. A signed piece of paper from a neighbor, stating that the elephant tusk you bought at his yard sale was pre-ban is not much, but it is a lot better than nothing. It takes little proof to avoid a problem in many cases. ( Not that things will normally ever go to a trial - but it is amazing how weak a piece of evidence it takes in a trial to prove the defense case.)

It is all in the way you handle yourself and your attitude. Sadly, many of the serious and often fatal situations on the news are caused by the reactions people have to being asked questions by governmental agents.

Final comment:
Yes, as in any walk of life there are good and bad people out there. Some Federal and State agents, LEO's, and other governmental persons can be a$$h@!es....but you adding one more a$$h@!e to the situation will not help things at all. Be the bigger person if needed.
Click to expand...

Once again Stacy, you are spot-on. Stacy and I have gotten the two agents of the USF&W service together to confer. I think it's a good thing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top