Legislature(2017 - 2018)BUTROVICH 205
01/29/2018 03:30 PM Senate RESOURCES
Note: the audio and video recordings are distinct records and are obtained from different sources. As such there may be key differences between the two. The audio recordings are captured by our records offices as the official record of the meeting and will have more accurate timestamps. Use the icons to switch between them.
Audio | Topic |
---|---|
Start | |
SJR4 | |
HJR12 | |
Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ | SJR 4 | TELECONFERENCED | |
+ | HJR 12 | TELECONFERENCED | |
+ | TELECONFERENCED |
SJR 4-AK LEGALLY ACQUIRED IVORY USE EXEMPTION 3:30:45 PM CHAIR GIESSEL announced consideration of SJR 4, version 30- LS0109\D, exempting Alaskan's legal ivory crafts, a staple of the Alaska Native community, from the blanket ivory ban targeting poaching operations in Africa and Asia. This resolution is sponsored by Senator Olson. JACQUELYN BOYER, staff to Senator Olson, sponsor of SJR 4, Alaska State Legislature, briefed the committee that this issue was brought to Senator Olson by various constituencies who face serious negative impacts from some states that have banned ivory. Some bans vary from being very specific like listing the species and sub-species of what they ban to just banning all ivory. Constituents' concern is that more states will initiate bans and imposing harsh consequences on legal artists in Alaska who obtain ivory through the by-products of subsistence or fossilized ivory product. 3:33:00 PM SENATOR STEDMAN joined the committee. MS. BOYER said the proposed committee substitute (CS) reflects Skagway artists' concerns who are non-Native and use ivory legally. 3:34:31 PM CHAIR GIESSEL opened invited testimony. VERA METCALF, Director, Eskimo Walrus Commission (EWC), Kawerak, Inc., Nome, Alaska, supported SJR 4. She said the commission represents about 19 coastal communities in North Slope, northwest Arctic, Bering Straits, Bethel, and Dillingham. She stated that the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) allows harvest of Pacific walrus for Alaska Native coastal residents. This exemption was included because it is a fundamental and culturally important activity. Utilizing all the gifts from the harvest of marine or other wildlife resources is also very fundamental to the cultural values of Alaska Native people. If the use and value of walrus ivory is generally outlawed, Alaska Natives could stop retaining walrus ivory, which could be considered wasteful take under the MMPA unless the take is for subsistence purposes and if such take is done for the purposes of creating and selling authentic Native handicrafts and clothing. If there is no market for creating and selling Alaska Native ivory art and handicrafts, Alaska Natives probably won't continue to create them. The economic and cultural impacts of walrus ivory remain critical to Alaskan communities. 3:37:17 PM CANDACE CAHILL, representing herself, Skagway, Alaska, supported SJR 4. She is a small business owner and artist and was asked to speak on behalf of Skagway's larger artist population and non- Native users of ivory. She urged the committee to consider how this resolution and the laws impacts Alaskans who are non- Native. Considerable efforts have been directed toward protecting the rights of Alaska Natives, which is right, to be able to harvest and utilize the walrus ivory as well as protecting their rights to collect and use extinct ivories from mammoths and mastodon, but the concerns of non-Native users of fossil materials has been largely overlooked. Her artwork, her husband's, and many of the people she represents use fossil walrus, mastodon, and mammoth ivory, much of which is collected by and bought from Alaska Natives. So, it's an income source for them, as well. But as a non-Native, she can only use fossilized ivory, because the animals have been dead for hundreds or thousands of years. It is the only type of ivory that is legal, because collecting it hasn't harmed any animals. Banning it would essentially shut them down. MS. CAHILL said much of the business they do is generated from tourism, and over the past several years there has been an increase in awareness of the protection of elephants and the legality of ivory as a whole. As a result, she and other in the industry spend a great deal of time trying to educate people about fossil ivory and how it takes hundreds of years for the ivory to show fossilization, the differences between fresh walrus ivory versus fossil, and address the significant differences between modern elephant ivory and ancient mammoth and mastodon ivory. MS. CAHILL said she also has an on-line business but is currently prohibited from selling work that incorporates fossil ivory in the four states that have outlawed it, and there is the potential to lose many more states over the next couple of years if Congress doesn't act. They need to be able to sell their work or their business and many others like it around Alaska will fail. Without the ability to work with fresh ivory, a lot of the fossil ivory will simply disintegrate and be lost. Artists are preserving the beauty and extraordinary qualities of these types of fossilized ivory. 3:41:28 PM MS. CAHILL said in preparing to talk today, she reviewed the U.S. Senate Bill 1965, The Allow Alaska Ivory Act, that was introduced in Congress last year by Senator Sullivan, but she was concerned about the wording as it does nothing to take concerns of non-Natives into consideration. She wants to do all in her power to ensure that their concerns are addressed and to be certain that it specifically includes language that protects the use of fossil ivories by all, not just Alaska Natives. 3:42:37 PM CHAIR GIESSEL, finding no questions, said that concluded invited testimony. SENATOR COGHILL moved to adopt CSSJR 4(RES), version 30-LS0109\O as the working document. CHAIR GIESSEL objected for purposes of discussion. She invited committee staff to explain the changes in the committee substitute. 3:43:45 PM AKIS GIALOPSOS, staff to Senator Giessel and the Senate Resources Committee, Alaska State Legislature, Juneau, Alaska, reviewed the five changes in the CS as follows: Senate Resources Committee Substitute for Senate Joint Resolution 4 Summary of Changes from Version D to Version O 1. Page 1, Lines 1-3: Deletes the title language from the previous version (Page 1, Lines 1- 2), and inserts a new title with the following language: "Urging the United States Congress to pass legislation providing for the exemption of legally acquired walrus, mammoth, and mastodon ivory from laws that ban the sale, use, and possession of ivory." 2. Page 1, Lines 11-12: Adds a new Whereas clause with the following language: "WHEREAS, non-Native individuals in the state use legally acquired mammoth ivory to make handicrafts, jewelry, and artwork; and" 3. Page 2, lines 6 and 11: Deletes the word 'Native' from the previous version (Page 2, Lines 4 and 9) 4. Page 2, Line 17: Add the words "legally acquired?" 5. Page 2, Lines 20-27: Deletes the language from the previous version sending copies to various dignitaries (Page 2, Lines 18-20). Adds new language listing the dignitaries receiving copies of the resolution. MS. BOYER said Senator Olson requested these changes consisting of neutral language to cover all Alaskans. CHAIR GIESSEL removed her objection. Finding no further objection, she announced that version O was before the committee. She opened public testimony. 3:46:29 PM ALICE BIOFF, member, Alaska State Council on the Arts, Community Planning Development, Kawerak, Nome, Alaska, supported SJR 4. She is a tribal member of the Native Village of Koyuk and grew up there and in Nome (for the last 18 years). Through her work at Kawerak she is privileged to work with artist entrepreneurs within the community, so they can sustain themselves, their families, and their communities. She said that walrus ivory harvested during subsistence hunting is one of the main materials artists use to carve into unique traditional artwork that has been recognized for its amazing craftsmanship throughout the world. Most importantly, the arts and crafts keep traditional practices alive and strong beautiful work being passed down from one generation to the next. She said: "Our art is weaved into who we are as indigenous people and having access to the materials to continue that art is vital." 3:49:48 PM MELANIE BAHNKE, President & CEO, Kawerak, Inc., Nome, Alaska, supported SJR 4. She is also the daughter of an Alaska Native artist and her two brothers carve ivory to make a living. She wanted to make it clear to Congress that the State of Alaska supports it Alaska Native artists. But this isn't just about Alaska Native artists; an entire community within the state relies on ivory, bone, and mastodon one way or another to support themselves and their families and contribute to the Alaska economy. She proposed amending the word "non-Native" in reference to mammoth ivory to "Native and non-Native". Language in the current proposed amendment sounds as though only non-Natives can work with mammoth ivory. She also recommended adequate review by legal staff where something is restricted to Alaska Natives, so that the proposal isn't in conflict with the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA). In conclusion, she asked the members to image what would happen if Alaska salmon was being banned in the other states, or crab and halibut. She said, "Ivory is a unique product that comes from our state and we need to protect it and also promote it on par with our salmon and our crab and fish." 3:52:11 PM CHAIR GIESSEL, finding no further comments, closed public testimony. SENATOR COGHILL moved Amendment 1, labeled 30-LS0109\O.1 30-LS0109\O.1 Laffen/Bannister 1/29/18 AMENDMENT 1 OFFERED IN THE SENATE BY SENATOR GIESSEL TO: CSSJR 4( ), Draft Version "O" Page 1, line 11: Delete "mammoth" Insert "fossilized" CHAIR GIESSEL objected for discussion purposes. 3:54:20 PM CHAIR GIESSEL invited committee staff to come forward and comment on the concern that both Native and non-Native needed to be specified in terms of the fossilized ivory. MS. BOYER responded the intent behind deleting "Native" was to encompass all artists in Alaska, because some use legally acquired ivory. MR. GIALOPSOS explained at the behest of the bill's sponsor the term "mammoth" was replaced with "fossilized," because of the concern that simply putting in the word "mammoth" would be prohibitive, because non-Natives artists are allowed to use fossilized mammoth, walrus, and mastodon. This just clarifies that non-Native artists have access only to all fossilized ivory. CHAIR GIESSEL removed her objection to Amendment 1, and finding no further objection, announced that Amendment 1 was adopted. SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI asked if Congress could preempt this issue. MR. BOYER answered yes, it can. 3:58:00 PM SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI asked if the sale of these products is not authorized under the Marine Mammal Protection Act. MS. BOYER replied that the MMPA is ambiguous and that is the basis of this resolution. SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI asked if any of the ivory that is being proposed to be sold meets any of the two requirements in the Hawaii bill that read: 1. On appendix 1 or 2 of the Convention of International Trade and Endangered Species or 2. As endangered or threatened under the Endangered Species Act. MS. BOYER said she didn't know. In deference to the recent Supreme Court decision not to take up the listing of the ringed seal appeal, Alaska Natives can harvest seal whether they are endangered or not, because of their subsistence rights. SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI asked if whale and walrus ivory is not an endangered species. MS. BOYER said she didn't know the answer to that. CHAIR GIESSEL asked Ms. Boyer to find answers to Senator Wielechowski's questions and forward them to her and she would distribute them to the committee. 4:01:15 PM SENATOR COGHILL moved to report CSSJR 4, as amended, from committee with individual recommendations and attached zero fiscal note. There were no objections and so CSSJR 4(RES) moved from committee.