Legislature(2017 - 2018)BARNES 124
04/03/2018 08:00 AM House COMMUNITY & REGIONAL AFFAIRS
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 | |
| Confirmation Hearing(s): Assessment Review Board | |
| SJR4 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| + | SJR 4 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
SJR 4-AK LEGALLY ACQUIRED IVORY USE EXEMPTION
8:48:10 AM
CO-CHAIR ZULKOSKY announced that the final order of business
would be CS FOR SENATE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 4(RES), 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.
8:48:34 AM
JIM PUCKETT, Staff, Senator Donny Olson, Alaska State
Legislature, presented CSSJR 4(RES) on behalf of Senator Olson,
prime sponsor. He said the need for the proposed legislation
came to light after Senator Olson received much feedback in the
form of letters, e-mails, petitions, and personal conversations.
He continued as follows:
For Western Alaska, a region that has an unemployment
rate that ranges from 10 to 21 percent, subsistence
provides food security, while the byproducts help
provide income. Anything that diminishes their
ability to ... make ends meet can potentially be
disastrous for those folks. This resolution
demonstrates support for our local artists, who are
using byproducts of subsistence, creating beautiful
art and selling their handiwork for much needed
income.
The resolution also strongly urges our federal
delegation to introduce legislation exempting legally
acquired Alaska walrus, mammoth, and mastodon ivory
from Lower 48 states' ivory bans. The Senator
certainly understands the desire of other states to
stop the illegal poaching of endangered African
species by enacting legislation banning ... ivory from
a state's commerce; however, doing so has created
significant, unintended negative impacts on Alaskan
artists across our state. In recent years, some
states introduced legislation banning the purchase or
the distribution of ivory, and it appeared that
additional states are considering and may soon
introduce legislation which will further erode the
market available to our Alaskan artists to sell their
products.
While it is true most states allow for possession of
non-African ivory, many of them prohibit the purchase
or the distribution of ivory without making the
distinction clear between Alaskan ivory and African
ivory. This lack of distinction and restriction
creates issues regarding the possession of the ivory
and the proof of purchasing the ivory outside of that
state.
8:52:07 AM
MR. PUCKETT stated that the actions of the Lower 48 states
economically hurt the disadvantaged regions of Alaska that
subsist and use ivory products for income. He advised that the
federal Marine Mammal Protection Act specifically recognizes the
rights of Alaska Natives to subsist on marine mammals. He said
the bans on ivory by Lower 48 states deter people from buying
Alaska ivory. He stated, "We need our federal delegation to
provide for the exemption of legally acquired ivories from
current and future legislation by other states." Mr. Puckett
addressed what this issue could mean for individual Alaska
artists and other Alaska residents. He said Alaska ivory
artists and craftspeople have already lost some of their
customer base and will continue to lose more customer base in
the Lower 48. He said Alaskans traveling through Lower 48
states with their legally acquired ivory could face harsh
penalties for possession. He said he would hate to think he
could be arrested for wearing his Alaska ivory tie tack while
traveling through one of those states. He concluded that the
statutes of some Lower 48 states could hinder the ability of
those who legally obtained their ivory to possess, trade, or
sell the ivory.
8:54:03 AM
MR. PUCKETT, in response to a question from Representative
Rauscher, said he is not aware of Alaska having any ban on its
ivory; however, six states so far have banned some categories of
ivory.
MR. PUCKETT proceeded to offer examples of statutes in various
states. For example, in the definition section of New York
statute, ivory is "raw or worked ivory from any species of
elephant or mammoth." The next section says, "No person shall
sell, offer for sale, purchase, trade, barter, or distribute an
ivory article." He noted the statute also includes horn of
rhinoceros. The penalties range from $250 to $25,000, depending
on the value of the ivory and whether it is a first or second
conviction. He related that the State of California defines
ivory as "the tooth or tusk of an elephant, hippopotamus,
mammoth, mastodon, walrus, warthog, whale, or narwhal." He
indicated that California also addresses intent to sell. He
mentioned an article about California authorities searching for
and seizing articles of ivory in retail stores. He said the
penalties established by the State of California in relation to
ivory range from $1,000 to $50,000. He said California Assembly
Bill 96 closed a loophole in state law that [had] allowed
elephant ivory to be brought in to the country and sold in
California, as long as it was originally obtained before 1977.
Mr. Puckett stated that the State of Hawai'i identified animals
listed in appendix i or ii of the Convention on International
Trade and Endangered Species or those labeled as endangered or
threatened under the Endangered Species Act. Mr. Puckett noted
that the Alaska walrus is not endangered, according to the
Department of the Interior and a study by U.S. Fish & Wildlife.
He further noted that the State of Hawai'i prohibits the sale,
offer of sale, purchase, trade, possession with intent to sell,
or barter of any product from a list of animals, including
elephant, rhinoceros, and tiger.
REPRESENTATIVE RAUSCHER asked how one identifies types of ivory
and whether a piece of ivory is somehow traceable.
MR. PUCKETT responded that an examination could be done to
determine whether the ivory is walrus or elephant. He added
that depending what has been made with the ivory, it could be
possible to tell just by the shape. For example, he said he has
seen cribbage boards made from walrus tusks that followed the
general shape of the tusk. He indicated that a small piece of
white ivory may not be as clear in terms of whether it is walrus
or elephant. Likewise, the brown ivory that is fossilized may
not be clearly identified as mammoth or mastodon, but it is
clearly ivory. He added that he is certain there must be some
method by which an expert can determine the species or origin of
ivory.
9:01:15 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER observed that the problem CSSJR 4(RES)
establishes is that certain states have blanket bans of ivory
that inappropriately ban the use of legally acquired Alaska
ivory, and the proposed joint resolution asks the federal
government to do something. He suggested perhaps the better
approach would be to contact the states directly to ask them to
change [their laws], because he said he does not think the
federal government can influence the states or pass a law
nationally that will require states to adjust their laws to
focus solely on illegally obtained ivory.
MR. PUCKETT explained that CSSJR 4(RES) would ask the federal
government to amend the Marine Mammal Protection Act to override
state legislation that bans ivory. He said the legislation is
F.1965, and it has been read twice and referred to the Senate
Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee. He noted that
Senator Lisa Murkowski has signed on as a co-sponsor.
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER indicated that he would investigate
whether the federal government has the jurisdiction necessary to
override "that kind of law."
9:04:07 AM
CO-CHAIR ZULKOSKY announced she would begin invited testimony.
9:04:19 AM
VERA METCALF, Director, Eskimo Walrus Commission at Kawerak,
stated that the commission represents approximately 19 coastal
communities in the North Slope, Northwest Arctic, Bering Strait,
Bethel, and Dillingham areas. She echoed Mr. Puckett's
statement that the Marine Mammal Protection Act allows harvest
of the Pacific walrus by Alaska Natives, which she said is
important because it is a fundamental and culturally important
activity for the community. She said climate change continues
to threaten [the ability to] "safely and properly harvest walrus
and other marine mammal resources." Ms. Metcalf said the
commission has worked closely with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service to develop harvest guidelines that have been distributed
to hunters and carvers in the communities. She said Section 109
of the Act provides that "accept as otherwise provided in this
section, no state may adopt any law or regulation relating to
the taking of marine mammals within its jurisdiction or attempt
to enforce any state law or regulation to such taking." Further
in Section 109, she relayed, Congress defines subsistence uses
as "the customary and traditional uses by rural Alaskan
residents of marine mammals for direct, personal, or family
consumption of food, shelter, fuel, clothing, tools, or
transportation and for the making and selling of handicraft
articles out of nonedible byproducts of marine mammals taken for
personal family consumption."
MS. METCALF, referring again to the guidelines, said the
commission encourages communities "to harvest these animals in a
non-wasteful manner." She said Pacific walrus are not listed on
the endangered species list and are healthy and adapting to
environmental changes. She reported that the community of
Savoonga harvested walrus yesterday.
MS. METCALF mentioned the United Nations Declaration of the
Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP), which further emphasizes
the need to consult with tribes on challenging and critical
issues. She spoke of respect for [Native Alaskans], who have a
right to subsistence and engaging in traditional activities,
which are a mode of income to support rural communities'
livelihoods. She emphasized that ivory is an important cultural
and traditional object to Alaska Natives. Ms. Metcalf stated
that the Eskimo Walrus Commission at Kawerak strongly supports
SJR 4, and she encouraged the committee to support it, as well,
because "ivory carving has been a very important cultural
practice for many of us for many, many centuries." She said
some carved objects carry spiritual significance while others
serve as decoration. She thanked Senator Olson for
"representing our concerns."
9:09:49 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER surmised that most people do not travel
to where the ivory carvers live, thus, are not buying directly
from the carvers; therefore, he asked if the purchase of ivory
carving from agents or by mail order makes it difficult for
those buyers to be educated as to why Alaska ivory products are
different from ivory sourced from endangered species.
MS. METCALF answered in the affirmative. She said that is why
the commission created a brochure about Alaska ivory, which
shows the difference between walrus ivory and elephant ivory.
She mentioned poaching of elephants for ivory. She said the
Convention for International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild
Fauna and Flora (CITES) "emphasized the implication of elephant
ivory, but the side effect of this is that it banned all ivory,
including walrus." She said the aforementioned brochure is for
educational outreach to the Lower 48 and any shop [that sells
ivory]. In response to a question from Representative Saddler,
she said the St. Lawrence Island Yupik word for tusk is "tugun,"
and for walrus is "ayveq."
9:13:31 AM
BRUCE SCHINDLER said that he would respond to previous
questions. He said he has worked in the ivory industry for 25
years, working mostly with wooly mammoth ivory sourced from gold
mines in the Klondike, which he said is different from fresh
walrus ivory used by Native Alaskans. He explained that he is
allowed to carve fossil ivory, which has been preserved in the
frozen ground beneath the tundra for between 2,000 to 35,000
years. Mr. Schindler described the difference between illegal
and legal ivory: the former is that which has been poached from
animals most likely on the endangered species list, and the sale
of that ivory he said is illegal unless done through a museum or
"fish and wildlife" with a permit; the latter are ivories dug up
out of the ground. Fresh walrus ivory use is permitted only for
those indigenous people who use it as a subsistence product.
MR. SCHINDLER indicated that about 90 percent of ivory can be
identified clearly. He listed walrus, fossilized walrus ivory,
mammoth ivory, and elephant ivory. Mammoth ivory that has been
buried for so many years takes on the characteristics of the
ground, with stains and some decay.
9:16:17 AM
MR. SCHINDLER expressed his hope that an exemption resulting
from the proposed joint resolution would override the bans of
Lower 48 states. Even if not, he proffered that Alaska's
precedent in saying that there are ivories that are important to
the culture of Alaska and to the rest of the U.S. He noted that
the State of Washington adopted the ivory ban but exempted
Alaska from the ban.
MR. SCHINDLER noted that about 10 percent of Skagway residents
depend on Alaska's history of ivory use [for their livelihoods].
He said the ivory bans aim to protect African and other
elephants. He opined that the ban has its merits, but is much
too broad, and Alaska ivory must be exempted from the ban. He
stated, "The Western use of fossil ivory and the Native use of
walrus ivory play no role in the decline of the animals on CIDES
Act, but the ban, as you can see, has a crushing effect on
myself, my community, and especially the Native communities up
north."
MR. SCHINDLER related that he preserves full, fossilized tusks,
and carves what he cannot preserve. He also supplies artists
with up to 3,000 pounds of mammoth ivory each year. He goes to
the Klondike gold fields to buy the tusks. He explained that
miners uncover mammoth tusks as a byproducts of gold mining, and
Mr. Schindler said he is often there to advise those miners and
physically unearth the tusks from the ground. He works directly
with paleontologists and geneticists, who have a mutual interest
in what is being unearthed. Further, he said he has a good
relationship with both Canada and U.S. Customs to import mammoth
ivory into the U.S. from Canada, as well as having a direct
relationship with the end user - the artists. He related that
he has a web site, preservationmammoth.com, which is
educational. He said once a tusk is unearthed, it must be
preserved, or it will disintegrate from exposure within a couple
years. He said, "If commercial use of mammoth ivory is deemed
illegal, miners will not preserve it, because they can only pile
up so much of the stuff. It would be shameful to see the
mammoth remains that have survived 35,000 years frozen in the
ground to just be left exposed and rot because of a
misunderstanding or of ignorance."
9:20:09 AM
MR. SCHINDLER said he has studied about and spent time with the
elephants in Asia. He said poaching is a big issue, but the
long-term plight is diminishing habitat, which he said does not
play much of a role in Alaska. He stated that Alaska has a long
and proud history of ethical ivory use, and he opined that it is
time for the state to "stand proud behind its heritage and
support it into the future." He asked the committee to
"celebrate the Native harvest of marine mammals that they've
done in harmony with nature for thousands of years" and to
celebrate "the preservation of fossil remains that have survived
tens of thousands of years in the ice." Mr. Schindler stated
his hope that the exemption would override a ban, but there are
other states that are considering doing a total ban. He said
the State of Washington enacted a ban but exempted Alaska ivory,
which is important.
9:21:01 AM
REPRESENTATIVE RAUSCHER asked Mr. Schindler why other states
have not exempted Alaska from their bans.
MR. SCHINDLER responded that five states had enacted a total
ban: California, Hawai'i, New York, New Jersey, and a fifth
state he could not recall. He said the bans do no distinguish
between types of ivory, and he indicated that Alaska was not
involved when these bans were instated. If it had been, he
speculated, Governor Jerry Brown [of California] would not have
any problem in distinguishing between the types of ivory. He
concluded, "That's where you guys are really important to us
right now." In response to a follow-up question, he confirmed
that the total ban "promotes ignorance over education." He
opined that there would be more justice for elephants if people
understood all the issues.
9:23:26 AM
CO-CHAIR PARISH offered his understanding that Alaskan ivory and
walrus ivory were specifically named in California's ivory ban.
MR. SCHINDLER offered his understanding that California's ban is
300 pages in length, and [Alaska's ivory] is mentioned in one
paragraph. He noted one concern is that elephant poachers will
claim that elephant ivory is wooly mammoth ivory. He said
people can stain ivory to make it look older, but "you can't
fake it when it comes down to it." He re-emphasized that
mammoth ivory is worn on the outside, as shown on his web site.
When cut into, the mammoth ivory stain will continue to the
inside. He talked about "Schreger lines" that are crosshatch
lines in ivory. Elephant ivory crosshatch lines are obtuse -
almost flat; [mammoth] ivory, on the other hand, has a sharp,
90-degree angle crosshatch line, and those angles cannot be
faked. He said, "We depend heavily on the retailer to
understand what distinguishes our ivory from ... elephant
ivory." He said in his 25 years, he has never seen elephant
ivory in the Alaska market. In response to a follow-up
question, he confirmed that distinctions are easy to make,
except in about 5 percent of cases, and that is usually when the
piece is carved very small. He said these differences are
readily known by paleontologists but not laymen. He added, "The
problem is that everybody knows about the plight of elephants,
but almost nobody out there knows what mammoth ivory is. And
then, once you introduce it to them, it becomes fascinating to
them." He indicated the need to educate people about fossil
walrus and mammoth ivories, as well as about the use of extant
walrus ivory used by Alaska Natives.
9:28:44 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER suggested a special name for Alaska ivory
may help, and he asked if that has been considered. For
example, he said Alaska's musk ox wool is called qiviut, and the
name Copper River Salmon differentiates that salmon from others.
MR. SCHINDLER said that is brilliant, but he does not believe
such distinction exists. He said he could market his ivory as
Klondike or Yukon ivory. He said he thinks now is the time to
begin marketing Alaska ivory as "ethical ivory."
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER explained that is why he had asked Ms.
Metcalf if there was an Alaska Native word for ivory.
MR. SCHINDLER said he was excited about that idea. He said
there are two distinct ivories in use: Northern Alaska Native
ivory and "the Western [Alaska] use of fossil ivories." He said
unfortunately, the Native people using ivory are "in more dire
straits" than he is, because "it's so much more their heritage
than ours down south."
9:30:39 AM
REPRESENTATIVE RAUSCHER posed a hypothetical situation in which
someone buys ivory while on vacation in Alaska and then sells it
at garage sale in the Lower 48. He asked if that would be
illegal.
MR. SCHINDLER answered that anyone can purchase ivory in Alaska
and bring it home, but in the states with bans, that ivory
cannot be commercially traded. He speculated that selling to a
friend via a garage sale in a state with an ivory ban would
probably be illegal. He surmised that a trade name for Alaska's
ivory coupled with better documentation of the ivory may
eliminate "that confusion, and such."
9:32:01 AM
ALICE BIOFF, Business Planning Specialist, Eskimo Walrus
Commission at Kawerak, said she is a tribal member of the Native
village of Koyuk, and her family has lived in Nome for the past
17 years. She said through her work at the commission she is
honored and privileged to work with community artists and
entrepreneurs. The commission provides direct technical
assistance offering tools and resources to assist artists in
continuing their work, so that they can sustain themselves,
their families, and their communities. Ms. Bioff stated that
walrus ivory harvested during subsistence hunting is one of the
key materials artists in the area use to carve into unique
traditional artwork that "has been recognized for its amazing
craftsmanship throughout the world." She said artist
entrepreneurs drive the economy in their communities, and she
has witnessed the impact on the economy that selling ivory has
had on the community. She said most importantly, arts and
crafts keep traditional practices alive and strong, with
"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." Ms. Bioff stated support of CSSJR
4(RES). She concluded as follows:
It would be a shame to see our ability to sell ivory
collapse because of a lack of understanding of a
culture that is unique and special, with a history of
customary traditions, an ability to live with nature,
and an ability to successfully self-manage a resource
such as walrus. Please educate those who do not
understand. This resolution is an important step in
advocating and protecting the inherent rights of each
and every one of our tribal members. Our ability to
harvest and use the byproducts of the animals we hunt
and sustain our families is crucial.
She thanked the legislators responsible for supporting CSSJR
4(RES). In response to a past question, she imparted that the
Inupiaq word for ivory is "puugaaq."
9:35:36 AM
CO-CHAIR ZULKOSKY opened public testimony on CSSJR 4(RES).
After ascertaining that there was no one who wished to testify,
she closed public testimony.
9:35:59 AM
CO-CHAIR ZULKOSKY announced that CSSJR 4(RES) was held over.