A RAPID ASSESSMENT
OF U.S. PHYSICAL IVORY MARKETSRachel Kramer, Sal Amato, Robin Sawyer, Giavanna Grein, Crawford Allan, Peter LaFontaine

NOTE: THIS DOCUMENT IS A SNAPSHOT OF ONE PART OF A SUBSTANTIVE REPORT ON THE U.S. IVORY MARKET
THAT WILL BE PUBLISHED BY TRAFFIC, FUNDED BY WWF AND IFAW IN 2016.

Physical Markets for Elephant Ivory in the United States
In 2008, the United States was determined from a market assessment to be the second largest elephant ivory market for
openly available product by volume, after China/Hong Kong (Martin & Stiles 2008). That assessment, which was conducted
between March and December 2006 and March and May 2007, covered 16 towns and cities in the U.S. and ranked NewYork (with 11,376 observed elephant ivory items), San Francisco (2,777 items) and Los Angeles (2,605 items) as the top
three U.S. locales for elephant ivory. One-third of the ivory observed in that assessment was estimated to be illegal (Martin& Stiles 2008).
In May-July 2016, a rapid assessment of a smaller sample size of six major U.S. metropolitan areas was performed byTRAFFIC in order to assess the availability, quantity and price of elephant ivory items in physical markets with and withoutstate-level legislation in place to regulate commercial sales. The locations surveyed in this assessment included greater
Boston, greater Los Angeles, New York City, Portland, San Francisco, and greater Washington, DC. Researchers found a
total of 1,589 ivory items offered for sale by 227 vendors. With certain outliers under investigation by law enforcement at
the time of this analysis, vendors selling elephant ivory had an average of merely 7 items for sale. Greater Washington, DC
was found to have the highest number of observed elephant ivory items (68 vendors with 658 items), followed by Portland,OR (37 vendors with 254 items), New York City, NY (41 vendors with 224 items1), greater Boston, MA (22 vendors with 188items), greater Los Angeles (42 vendors with 177 items), and San Francisco (17 vendors with 88 items).

State legislation in effectPortland

Boston254 items
37 vendors

San Francisco
88 items
17 vendors

Los Angeles
177 items
42 vendors

188 items
22 vendors

New York

224 items
41 vendors

Washington D.C.
658 items
68 vendors

The age and provenance of items could not be verified by researchers without lab testing and historical documentation —therefore the legality of these items could not be conclusively assessed. Although by no means a comprehensive catalogueof all physical ivory for sale in the U.S. in this study period, this assessment provides a snapshot of a segment of theU.S. physical market so that future analyses can evaluate the effectiveness of a recent Federal rulemaking to restrict
commercial elephant ivory sales, imports and exports in the U.S. These findings also provide insight into the general lack ofunderstanding of domestic laws by the U.S. sellers surveyed.
Two New York City-based retailers with significant inventory indicated to be “mammoth” and “bone” could not be validated by the researchers and were
therefore not included in this accounting. Information on these vendors was provided to the authorities.

1

Carved elephant ivory tusk in a Portland, Oregon antique shop.

Physical Survey Methods

Researchers posed asprospective buyers

Three urban centerswhere state legislation
was in effectThree urban centerswhere state legislation
was not in effect

For this rapid assessment, physical surveys were conducted by TRAFFIC staff and an experienced
and trained consultant. As has been done in similar surveys, researchers posed as prospective
buyers in order to solicit information from vendors regarding the elephant ivory that they had on
display or in stock. Where possible, and within legal limits, photos and/or videos were obtainedin order to assist with species identification, verification of presence and offer for sale, as well as
estimates as to the quantity of ivory present. Data collected included details on vendor locations,as well as the type, quantity, and price of elephant ivory and elephant ivory look-alikes on display.
Where time-sensitive information was collected concerning potential violations, researchers
supplied observation reports directly to law enforcement for follow up, as appropriate.
Three urban centers were selected for this study in the states of New York and California wherestate legislation was in effect at the time of this data collection. Three urban centers in the statesof Oregon, Massachusetts and the greater District of Columbia were selected based on anecdotal
information from law enforcement and other sources which indicated that significant ivory markets
were in place2. Although Oregon, Massachusetts and the District of Columbia have introduced
state ivory legislation or ballot initiatives, these measures were not enacted at the time of thisstudy. These locations have therefore afforded the opportunity to assess their relative markets
and to establish ‘baselines’ for states that do not currently have legislation in place to regulate
intrastate sales.
As opposed to a comprehensive ‘blanket’ assessment of all possible ivory trade occurring ina given location, this study adopted a targeted approach. Physical surveys focused on outlets
where ivory sales were most likely to be present. Research was performed in a broad rangeof outlet “types,” including art and antique stores, gift shops, jewelry stores, auction houses,musical instrument dealers, firearm and knife shows, and flea markets. The retail selection criteria
included:• Reference to a business, either specifically or generally, in a previous ivory market survey;• Information gathered from area experts including local law enforcement and businesses;• Current or recent advertisements of ivory either on a website or social media site
associated with a business;• Reference to a business, either specifically or generally, in an online article regardingivory sales;• Information collected during TRAFFIC and partner organization informal physical scoping
visits and remote scoping using Google and Google Maps.

2It should be noted that although Boston and the District of Columbia areas were included in the 2008 Martin & Stiles assessment, there is no existingbaseline for Portland.

Snapshot: 2016 Physical Market Findings
State legislationin effect

658
items

Scaled percentage
39%

34%

29%

27%

13%

68
vendors
Washington D.C.*

54%

60%

32%

62%

25%

PortlandNew YorkBoston*

Los Angeles*

San Francisco

Relative to the highest
total, Washington D.C.
* Washington, DC survey
incl. Georgetown, Chantilly,
VA and Kensington,
MD; Boston survey incl.
Cambridge and Concord;
Los Angeles survey incl.
Alhambra, Pasadena, San
Gabriel, West Hollywood

The term “ivory” can be used to describe any mammalian tooth or tusk that is large enough to be carved or scrimshawed3(WWF TRAFFIC CITES 1999). Elephant ivory look-alikes that were observed and noted by researchers in this survey of theU.S. market included: mammoth ivory, walrus teeth, whale tooth, whale bone, narwhal tusk, hippopotamus tooth, warthog
tusk, animal bone and antler, vegetable ivory, shell, and synthetic materials and resins. Despite best efforts, there werecases in which researchers could not visually confirm the material of suspected elephant ivory articles in trade. These items
were not incorporated into final figures for elephant ivory quantities observed in U.S. cities.
Ultimately, this rapid assessment found limited volumes of elephant ivory openly available for sale in the previous top threeU.S. physical markets delineated in 2008 (Martin & Stiles). Greater Washington, DC was found the have the highest numberof observed elephant ivory items (68 vendors with 658 items), followed by Portland, OR (37 vendors with 254 items), NewYork City, NY (41 vendors with 224 items4), greater Boston, MA (22 vendors with 188 items), greater Los Angeles (42vendors with 177 items), and San Francisco (17 vendors with 88 items). Although for San Francisco, an informal one-day
scoping assessment conducted in April 2016 by TRAFFIC using a Chinese investigator (prior to the implementation of a
California state ivory trade ban) did show a much larger availability of elephant ivory openly for sale (20 vendors with anestimated 703 items).
These results may be attributed to increased regulation and law enforcement effort in the states of New York and California.
Certain vendors told the researchers that in some cases, elephant ivory items are being relocated from states with intrastate
commercial restrictions to states lacking legislation, for purposes of sale. Expanded, regular monitoring will be essential toadequately measure shifts in the U.S. market against this 2016 data, to assess whether sales are pivoting from historicalphysical markets to new commercial spaces, online platforms, and/or are being driven to covert illegal markets.
Researchers found that surveyed vendors generally lacked a clear understanding of Federal and state laws regulating thecommercial sale of elephant ivory in the U.S. None of the vendors surveyed in physical markets had visible permits showing
either legal origins of importation or state level sales permits where required. The researchers found that elephant ivory wasavailable in the greatest volumes at ‘antique’ expos and flea markets, with limited availability in physical storefronts or gun
shows. Vendors told researchers that this was a result of rising rents and higher risks associated with displaying ivory on
store and gallery shelves.
The price of elephant ivory, particularly raw ivory, can be an essential indicator of trends in the market. The majority of itemsobserved for sale in the U.S. physical market during this survey period were carved items available in small quantities (anaverage of 4 items per vendor in the greater Los Angeles area, ranging to an average of 9 items per vendor in the greater
Boston area). Generally, elephant ivory items were mixed with miscellaneous antiques, jewelry and other pieces. Prices forworked elephant ivory items varied widely according to size, age and quality of carving. Researchers were offered a pairof intact elephant tusks for $15,000 (New York City, NY), an Asian-style carved intact elephant tusk for $15,000 (New YorkCity, NY), and an African-style carved intact elephant tusk for $1,800 (Portland, OR). In New York City, several vendors told
the researchers that they knew it was illegal to sell their elephant ivory pieces and that they would offer discounted prices inorder to rid themselves of risky inventory.
For more information, see the WWF-TRAFFIC-CITES handbook that is “designed to offer wildlife law enforcement officers, scientists and managers atentative visual means of distinguishing legal from illegal ivory, and a ‘probable cause’ justification for seizure of the suspected illegal material”: https://cites.org/sites/default/files/eng/resources/pub/E-Ivory-guide.pdf

3Two New York City-based retailers with significant inventory that was indicated to be “mammoth” and “bone” could not be validated by the researchers
and were therefore not included in this accounting. Information on these vendors was provided to the authorities.

4Discussion
During this investigation period, a major shift in applicable laws was underway. On July 6, 2016 the U.S. Fish and WildlifeService completed a series of changes to U.S. federal regulations that it termed a “near-total ban” on imports, exports,and domestic trade of African elephant ivory, with limited exemptions for certain antiques, de minimus objects, imports andexports, and intrastate commerce. It is important to note that, under the newly revised Federal regulations, sellers now
assume the burden of proving that their ivory item qualifies for a given exemption. The USFWS has given guidance on
what evidence or documentation may be used to meet this standard, but has declined to provide an exhaustive list, insteadallowing enforcement agents to make their best judgments based on available evidence.
In this new regulatory climate, the following findings from this 2016 ‘baseline’ should be taken into consideration:• The U.S. physical ivory market appears to be generally declining in the face of strong regulatory and publicawareness measures by the U.S. government to ban the elephant ivory trade.
• State bans seem to have had a significant impact on reducing the open availability of elephant ivory in formerly
significant markets.
• In surveyed states with active bans, vendors were confused about specific details but many stated that they
believed they were breaking the law by selling elephant ivory. Most were nonetheless interested in negotiating lower
prices to get rid of their stocks.
• Certain vendors indicated verbally to the researchers that they are holding back inventory, in case laws change
in future that may allow legal sale.
• Shifts may be occurring to new centers of trade in states where oversight is lax and/or laws have not beenenacted.

Recommendations••••

In order to measure shifts in the U.S. market
against this baseline and in particular the impactof U.S. Federal regulations that went into effect on
July 6. 2016, regular monitoring will be needed toassess whether physical sales are pivoting to new
locations5, to online platforms, and/or being driven
underground.
The USFWS could enhance understanding ofFederal and state regulations amongst buyers
and sellers through targeted outreach, to lessen
confusion.
Random inspections by law enforcement arerecommended for traders who have been previously
found to sell elephant ivory in significant quantities.
High profile publicity on prosecutions of traders whoviolate the law is recommended for deterrence.

Elephant ivory-filled case at The Big Flea in Chantilly, VA.

Acknowledgments
The authors thank the staff of WWF, TRAFFIC and IFAW for their oversight and support. WWF-US and IFAW generously funded this report. The authors
would like to acknowledge the support of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Office of Law Enforcement and the New York State Department of Environmental
Conservation (NYSDEC), Division of Law Enforcement.
Recommended Citation
Kramer, R., Amato, S., Sawyer, R., Grein, G., Allan, C. and LaFontaine, P. 2016. A Rapid Assessment of U.S. Physical Ivory Markets. TRAFFIC US,Washington DC, USA.
References•Martin & Stiles. 2008. Ivory markets in the USA. Care for the Wild International, Save the Elephants. Available at: http://savetheelephants.org/wpcontent/uploads/2014/03/2008IvoryMarketsUSA.pdf•Stiles, D. 2014. Elephant ivory trafficking in California, USA. NRDC. Available at: https://www.nrdc.org/sites/default/files/wil_15010601a.pdf•WWF-TRAFFIC-CITES. 1999. Identification guide for ivory and ivory substitutes. Available at: https://cites.org/sites/default/files/eng/resources/pub/EIvory-guide.pdf
5Anecdotal information indicates that Miami, FL and Las Vegas, NV are emerging locations of interest.

ANNEX
Summary of U.S. state legislation regulating the intrastate commercial trade in elephant ivory at the time of this survey.
U.S. State

Legislation Status6

California*

Bill 96: signed into law October 4, 2015; implemented July, 2016
Restricts sales of ivory from elephant, hippo, mammoth, mastodon, walrus, warthog, whale, narwhal, rhino horn. Exemptions forantiques (a) documented 100+ years old and (b) less than 5% wildlife product; and ivory-containing instruments (a) made no later
than 1975 and (b) less than 20% wildlife product.

Connecticut

Legislation proposed.

Colorado

Legislation proposed.

Delaware

Legislation proposed.

Hawaii

Bill S2647: signed into law June 23, 2016; will be implemented June 30, 2017.
Similar to Washington (see below). Exemptions for antiques, guns, knives, and musical instruments that are (a) documented as
manufactured before 1976 (or 100+ years old), (b) less than 20% wildlife product, (c) where the wildlife product is “fixed” (i.e. anintegrated, immovable component), (d) where the wildlife product is not the source of the item’s value.

Maryland*

Legislation proposed.

Massachusetts*

Legislation proposed.

New York*

Bill S7890: signed into law on June 19, 2014; implemented immediately.
A ban on sales of elephant and mammoth ivory, and rhino horn. Exemptions for antiques that are (a) documented 100+ years oldand (b) consist of less than 20% ivory/horn; and for ivory-containing musical instruments made no later than 1975.

New Jersey

Bill S2012: signed into law on August 1, 2014; implemented six months later.
Ban extends to all animals with ivory and rhino horn.

Oregon*Appears poised to pass an initiative in the November 2016 election.
Measure 100 which covers several groups of imperiled wildlife species with exemptions for legally acquired musical instruments
and antiques documented 100+ years provided any wildlife it contains is fixed, and less than 200 grams.

Vermont

Legislation proposed.

Washington

I-1401: passed November 3, 2015.
Ban on sales of ivory and products of wildlife species such as rhinos, pangolins, marine turtles, tigers, and others with exemptions
for antiques (a) documented 100+ years old and (b) with less than 15% wildlife product.

*States with urban centers covered by this rapid assessment.

Ivory-framed image of George Washington

Signage by one vendor in Kensington, MD

Under U.S. law, federal oversight of intrastate trade is largely reserved to state governments. USFWS can enforce CITES “use after import” provisions(50 C.F.R. 2355) but that limits intrastate ivory sales to items that were legally imported to the U.S. prior to January 18, 1990 (the date of listing in CITES
Appendix I), or those imported under a CITES Pre-Convention certificate. This presents a plausible loophole for sellers to claim they are involved solely
in intrastate trade—without proof of intent to sell across a state border, enforcement officials may be stuck. In recent years, numerous states havepassed legislation or ballot initiatives to close this gap, and brighten the line between legal and illegal trade. All of the following laws contain exemptions
for scientific and law enforcement specimens.

6