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.]