Legislature(2017 - 2018)GRUENBERG 120
04/13/2018 01:00 PM House JUDICIARY
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 | |
| HJR38 | |
| HB54 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | SJR 4 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB 54 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | HJR 38 | TELECONFERENCED | |
SJR 4-AK LEGALLY ACQUIRED IVORY USE EXEMPTION
6:16:58 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN announced that the first/next/final/only 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.
6:17:38 PM
JIM PUCKETT, Staff, Representative Donald Olson, Alaska State
Legislature, explained that the need for SJR 4 came to the
sponsor's attention after many of his constituents contacted him
with letters, e-mails, conversations, and petitions. Senator
Olson, he offered, represents the northern and western regions
of Alaska with an unemployment rate of 10-21 percent. (Audio
difficulties) provide sorely needed income. Anything that
diminishes the ability to have that income can lead to
potentially devastating consequences. He remarked that the
passage of SJR 4 will demonstrate support for local Alaska
artists who are using byproducts of subsistence or fossilized
ivory, creating beautiful art, and selling their creations for
income. In order to curtail the poaching of African elephant
ivory, six Lower-48 states banned either all ivory or some
ivory, and in addition to elephant ivory other states may pass
their own legislation banning Alaskan ivory. As of December
2017, 16 states have similar legislation in process, and the
consequences for those actions economically hurts the
disadvantaged regions in Alaska that subsist and use ivory
products. The ban on ivory in these Lower-48 states is a severe
deterrent to those people who wish to buy Alaskan ivory. It is
critical to understand that the Marine Mammal Protection Act of
1972 (MMPA) specifically recognized the rights of Alaska Natives
to subsist on marine mammals and to use the byproducts of that
subsistence. He offered that non-Natives can legally own, work
with, and sell fossilized ivory. Alaska needs its federal
delegation to provide for the exemption of legally obtained
Alaskan ivory from current and future prohibitive legislation by
the Lower-48 states and, he pointed out, ivory artists and
craftsmen have already lost some of their customer base and will
continue to lose more in those states. These statutes do not
distinguish between African ivory and legally acquired Alaskan
ivory; thereby hindering the ability of those Alaskans who have
legally obtained their ivory and they can possess, trade, or
sell, the ivory. Alaskans and residents of other states who are
simply traveling through the states with bans could face harsh
penalties for possessing their ivory. This resolution
communicates that the MMPA protects the rights of Alaska Natives
in the harvesting of walrus ivory and producing a variety of
items as an important source for income in rural economics.
This resolution also communicates that Alaska Natives produce
beautiful and useful fossilized ivory, mammoth ivory, and
mastodon ivory, and that residents of certain states may be
subject to criminal charges for buying, owning, and returning
home with items made with legally acquired ivory in Alaska.
Lastly, this resolution urges the United State Congress to pass
legislation exempting legally acquired walrus, mammoth, and
mastodon ivory from current and future state laws banning or
restricting the sale, use, and/or possession of ivory, he
explained.
6:22:47 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN asked whether this resolution asks the
United States Congress to pass a law that will invalidate state
laws banning ivory, or any laws that do not distinguish [between
the ivory].
MR. PUCKETT responded that United States Senator Dan Sullivan
introduced S-1965 [115th Congress, 1st Session] which addresses
the section of the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) giving
permission to Alaska Natives to harvest ivory. (Audio
difficulties) Alaska ivory and he offered to produce that
section from S-1965.
6:24:05 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN asked whether the intent is to separate
African elephant ivory, for example, from "the rest of the
ivory." In the event that is the case, he asked whether the
location that the ivory was obtained would be obvious to the
consumer.
MR. PUCKETT answered that (audio difficulties) different when it
is raw or fossilized, but it has been worked with and turned
into a piece of art or handles on dinnerware, and so forth. He
said that a person would have to "get some professional help" in
order to distinguish the type of ivory, and to the lay-consumer,
they would have to trust that the merchant is dealing with legal
ivory. (Audio difficulties) made that distinction between
Alaskan ivory and ivory from an endangered species, most of whom
are located in Africa.
6:25:24 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN suggested an amendment adding narwhal
ivory to this list of exemptions that separates elephant ivory
from all other types of ivory.
MR. PUCKETT replied that he was unsure how this resolution,
which is requesting an exemption for Alaskan ivory, would be
connected with the elephant ivory to which Representative
Eastman referenced.
6:26:11 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN opened public testimony on SJR 4. After
ascertaining no one wished to testify, closed public testimony
on SJR 4.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN advised that he would like to speak with
the sponsor and possibly come forward with an amendment
regarding the subject of his question.
[SJR 4 was held over.]