<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:x="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:excel" xmlns:st1="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40" xmlns:ns1="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns:ns0="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags"> <head> <meta http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=us-ascii"> <meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 11 (filtered medium)"> <o:SmartTagType namespaceuri="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" name="City"/> <o:SmartTagType namespaceuri="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" name="place"/> <o:SmartTagType namespaceuri="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" name="State"/> <o:SmartTagType namespaceuri="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" name="PostalCode"/>  <style>  </style>  </head> <body lang=EN-US link=blue vlink=purple> <div class=Section1> >>I would be happy to see political/moral/ethical discussion end.  I don’t believe anyone is arguing that turning over a 1920’s Steinway with ivory key covers is immoral.    <o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> Seems to me that was exactly what they were arguing. It is certainly the underlying premise of the law. All law dictates morality: This behavior is okay, that is bad. Therefore if you attempt to outlaw the sale of a 1920 Steinway with ivory, you are declaring that behavior to be immoral.<o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> While it is certainly true that lots of elephants got poached and lots of people were exploited and suffered in the ivory trade, that isn’t exclusively the case. <o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> And, yes, it’s true, I am a hypocrite. Mea culpa.<o:p></o:p> <div> Dean<o:p></o:p> Dean W May                        (812) 235-5272 voice and text<o:p></o:p> PianoRebuilders.com           (888) DEAN-MAY         <o:p></o:p> <ST1:PLACE u1:st="on"><ST1:PLACE u2:st="on"><U2:CITY u1:st="on"><ns0:City w:insAuthor="Dean May" w:insDate="2012-05-09T04:37:00Z" w:endInsAuthor="Dean May" w:endInsDate="2012-05-09T04:37:00Z"><st1:place w:st="on"><st1:City w:st="on">Terre Haute</st1:City></st1:place></ns0:City></U2:CITY> <ns0:State w:insAuthor="Dean May" w:insDate="2012-05-09T04:37:00Z" w:endInsAuthor="Dean May" w:endInsDate="2012-05-09T04:37:00Z"><U2:STATE u1:st="on"><st1:State w:st="on">IN</U2:STATE></st1:State></ns0:State> <ns0:PostalCode w:insAuthor="Dean May" w:insDate="2012-05-09T04:37:00Z" w:endInsAuthor="Dean May" w:endInsDate="2012-05-09T04:37:00Z"><U2:POSTALCODE u1:st="on"><st1:PostalCode w:st="on">47802</st1:PostalCode>           Give us a LIKE on Facebook! <a href="https://www.facebook.com/pages/PianoRebuilderscom/137780082943148">Go to PianoRebuilders.com</a></U2:POSTALCODE></ns0:PostalCode><o:p></o:p> </div> <div> <div class=MsoNormal align=center style='text-align:center'> <hr size=2 width="100%" align=center tabindex=-1> </div> From: pianotech-bounces@ptg.org [mailto:pianotech-bounces@ptg.org] On Behalf Of David Love Sent: Wednesday, May 09, 2012 1:51 AM To: pianotech@ptg.org Subject: Re: [pianotech] Ivory Laws<o:p></o:p> </div> <o:p> </o:p> I think the whole thing has gotten off topic and turning into something quite different than it started out.   In its original form it certainly was an appropriate topic for the list.   It wasn’t originally discussion on whether one should or should not harvest ivory.   I think most people agree on that issue.  The issues being discussed were 1.) whether there is any legal exposure in selling a vintage piano that already has ivory key covers and 2.) if there is should one be considering taking ivory off of a vintage piano before selling it.  <o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> The answer so far is vague.  While it does appear that there are laws on the books prohibiting sales of ivory in any form, there are many ivory “suppliers” who sell pre-banned ivory ,and many items, such as pianos, that contain ivory.  The state regulators (at least in <st1:State w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">California</st1:place></st1:State>, though this is a federal law) suggest that the it is more a matter of enforcement than a clear definition of the law.  I’ve contacted various people involved in this part of the trade who claim that they are legally allowed to sell the products that they have.  I don’t doubt them since they are people who have been in the business for some time and seem to have researched this quite well.  There seems to be a difference in the law as characterized by import versus possession.  I’ve note been able to come up with a definitive conclusion about what should or shouldn’t be done and since I don’t sell that many pianos it doesn’t really impact me that much.  But because Fish and Game has conducted a few raids on sellers of ivory artifacts it’s worth considering.  <o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> I would be happy to see political/moral/ethical discussion end.  I don’t believe anyone is arguing that turning over a 1920’s Steinway with ivory key covers is immoral.    <o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> David Love<o:p></o:p> www.davidlovepianos.com<o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> <div style='border:none;border-top:solid #B5C4DF 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in'> From: pianotech-bounces@ptg.org [mailto:pianotech-bounces@ptg.org] On Behalf Of Noah Frere Sent: Tuesday, May 08, 2012 10:07 PM To: pianotech@ptg.org Subject: Re: [pianotech] Ivory Laws<o:p></o:p> </div> <o:p> </o:p> I'm not sure where to draw the line with appropriate conversation on the tech-list. Is materials fair game? (no pun intended). I know ethics are part of our codes. So the ethics of piano materials seems like a fairly important subject. However, again, I'm not sure this is the place for it or not. If not here, what list? Is there an ethics email list?<o:p></o:p> <div> On Tue, May 8, 2012 at 9:58 PM, Dean May <<a href="mailto:deanmay@pianorebuilders.com" target="_blank">deanmay@pianorebuilders.com</a>> wrote:<o:p></o:p> This is really political and heavily one sided. It is only beautifully put if you agree with the faulty premises, which some on this list to not. Most of the same arguments could be made against eating meat. Can we lay it to rest now? Dean Dean W May <a href="tel:%28812%29%20235-5272">(812) 235-5272</a> voice and text PianoRebuilders.com (888) DEAN-MAY <st1:place w:st="on"><st1:City w:st="on">Terre Haute</st1:City> <st1:State w:st="on">IN</st1:State> <st1:PostalCode w:st="on">47802</st1:PostalCode></st1:place><o:p></o:p> <div> -----Original Message----- From: <a href="mailto:pianotech-bounces@ptg.org">pianotech-bounces@ptg.org</a> [mailto:<a href="mailto:pianotech-bounces@ptg.org">pianotech-bounces@ptg.org</a>] On Behalf<o:p></o:p> </div> <div> Of Joseph Giandalone Sent: Tuesday, May 08, 2012 9:46 PM To: <a href="mailto:pianotech@ptg.org">pianotech@ptg.org</a> Subject: Re: [pianotech] Ivory Laws<o:p></o:p> </div> <div> <div> Mark, You put this beautifully, and I couldn't agree with you more completely ! It always was, at all times in History, WRONG to slaughter these creatures so that their two front teeth could contribute to minor amusements for humans. And this is the kind of hubris and arrogance that is destroying our planet. Ivory is a fetish, and I've called it so in the past (and been roundly ridiculed in this forum for advocating the "waste" of what ivory has already been "harvested" - and for ignoring the wonderful laws that provide for the sale of confiscated poached ivory and use the proceeds to extend protections against such poaching. HAH.) The consistent way to advocate for protection of the source animals from poaching is to reject the fatuous idea that Real Ivory makes a piano in any way more desirable as an instrument. Or that the Ivory Trade was EVER anything but a brutish, disgraceful exercise for all concerned in every segment of it. Seriously: do some reading up on it if you dare; it was, in its heyday, a massive disgrace to the human race. Nobody ever asked the elephants if it was OK with them to take their 2 front teeth and brutally murder them in the bargain. Remember folks: these are among the most intelligent animals on earth; they are very family-oriented, and they mourn their dead. I'd like to say to some of the folks on the "other side" of this issue: a leather-crafting friend of mine tells me that the human scrotum makes a very fine wallet . . . any of you gents mind if we help ourselves to a little raw material ?? Joseph Giandalone <st1:place w:st="on"><st1:City w:st="on">Conway</st1:City>, <st1:State w:st="on">MA</st1:State></st1:place> On May 4, 2012, at 12:17 PM, Mark Dierauf wrote: > Paul - > > Of course I realize that you are not advocating the slaughter of elephants to provide new material for covering piano keys (or any other reason). But we as piano techs often (virtually always, in my experience) praise this material for various reasons, and that is the problem. As long as ivory is prized for whatever reason there will be a market for it and these animals will be pushed ever closer to extinction. You say near the end of your post that we should not do anything that encourages the killing of elephants. I believe that whenever we talk about "a beautiful set of ivories" we are doing just that, even though that is certainly not our intention. Like it or not, we are part of the problem. > > I used to think that confiscated poached ivory could be sold and the proceeds used to fund anti-poaching efforts. That was tried, and it only served to further increase the value of tusks in a part of the world where money is scarce and life is cheap. More and more I think that it all belongs in museums only, and that we as a society can either choose to be inconvenienced by regulation or watch passively as these (and other) animals disappear forever. Before you (not you specifically, Paul, but anyone reading this) take issue with my use of the word "inconvenienced" in speaking of regulations that can often seem heavy-handed, I would refer you back to my original post - "Tell that to the elephants". > > Respectfully, > > - Mark > > On 5/4/2012 8:32 AM, paul bruesch wrote: >> Whoa. That photo is repulsive and uncalled for. I am absolutely NOT suggesting that we should continue to "produce" new ivory. This thread is about selling a piano with key covers made from animals that have long since been "harvested". The gist of it is that no one who owns a piano in <st1:State w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">California</st1:place></st1:State> can sell it if it happens to have ivory key covers. Instead, they need to have those ivory covers removed and replaced with plastic. Do you know what plastic production looks like? Ulimately, it may not be quite as hideous as your graphic photo of the slaughtered elephant, but it ain't pretty either. Who gains anything besides the technician recovering the keys? >> >> I completely agree with the current US ban. We absolutely should not do anything that encourages further killing of these enormous, beautiful beasts. >> >> I think this post should remove any doubt as to my viewpoint in this matter. I will not respond to it any more. >> >> Note that the use of double-quotes in the first paragraph is to denote the use of popular euphemisms typically used to soften the tone of this sort of practice. >> >> Paul Bruesch >> <st1:place w:st="on"><st1:City w:st="on">Stillwater</st1:City>, <st1:State w:st="on">MN</st1:State></st1:place> ><o:p></o:p> </div> </div> </div> <o:p> </o:p> </div> </body> </html>