SJR 4-AK LEGALLY ACQUIRED IVORY USE EXEMPTION  3:56:21 PM CHAIR BISHOP announced consideration of SJR 4. SENATOR DONNY OLSON, sponsor of SJR 4, Alaska State Legislature, Juneau, Alaska, explained this resolution is designed to do two things: to show support for products made out of ivory by Alaskans in the State of Alaska as well as to urge the federal delegation to provide for exemptions for legally obtained ivory in the United States. This resolution was brought to his attention by his constituents from Kaktovik, which is at the eastern border of Canada, down to Diomede and Hooper Bay. Those constituents, especially during the Alaska Federation of Natives (AFN) annual convention, told him they were very concerned about what was going on with the ban on elephant ivory, because the byproducts of other ivories provide necessary incomes to indigenous people that take the edge off of living out there. SENATOR OLSON said he would like to be able to wear his ivory jewelry without it being banned in other states. He displayed a baleen basket with a fossilized narwhal ivory top and a mastodon ivory carving made by the former mayor of the Northwest Arctic Borough, Ross Shaffer. JACQUELINE BOYER, staff to Senator Donny Olson, Alaska State Legislature, Juneau, Alaska, further explained SJR 4 on behalf of the sponsor. She said New York is a state that bans ivory and defines it as pertaining to elephant and mammoth, even though mammoth is extinct. Their statute prohibits selling, offering to sell, purchase, trade, barter or distribute any ivory or rhinoceros horn and then provides for some exceptions (such as to license or permit an antique for educational or scientific purposes, an estate, or a musical instrument). Fines associated with possessing ivory include up to a minimum of $500 up to a class D felony with a $25,000 fine. California prohibits purchasing, selling, offering to sell, possessing with intent to sell, or importing ivory. Their definitions of ivory include elephant, hippopotamus, mammoth, mastodon, walrus, warthog, whale, and narwhal. Their exemptions include permits for instruments or for educational purposes. The fines are from $1,000 up to $50,000. Hawaii prohibits selling, offering to sell, purchasing, trading, possessing with intent to sell, and bartering ivory including whale, walrus, and mammoth, noting that even though it's extinct they still want to prevent people from possessing it. Their exceptions include the right of the indigenous people to possess and do their traditional practices, much like in Alaska, but they don't include Alaska Natives in the rights to sell to other people in Hawaii. 4:01:23 PM New Jersey has similar language, but just blatantly says all ivory rather than listing endangered or extinct species. They don't provide for any exceptions. The most serious offense - after the third time - is seizure of all ivory. The State of Washington only bans living elephant ivory, which seems to be the most reasonable provision. CHAIR BISHOP asked if mastodon ivory is legal in Washington State. MS. BOYER answered yes. The Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) is cited in the resolution. Section 109 relates to transferring of authority from the secretary to the state. That might need some clarification to maybe preempt states from arbitrarily banning ivory that has been legally obtained. Section 1539 specifically states that these MMPA provisions don't apply to any Indian, Aleut, or Eskimo who resides in an Alaska Native village and any non-Native permanent resident in an Alaska Native village. That could be extended to their by- products. 4:04:08 PM SENATOR OLSON said he was open to questions on this resolution that is very important to the people of western and northern Alaska where legally obtained ivory has been taken by the local population and made into beautiful handcrafted items. SENATOR STEDMAN said he liked the resolution, and asked how states that make presently owned ivory illegal deal with it. Do they have to turn it in, and what about the things in collections and on grandma's coffee table? MS. BOYER answered it varies state by state. It has to be reported to Fish and Wildlife Services in one state; for others it's okay to have as long as it's older than 1972. SENATOR OLSON added that most people who have private collections have been grandfathered in, especially if the collections were obtained before 1972 when the MMPA went into effect. In most states the general law is you can keep it, but not sell or barter it for anything else. SENATOR STEDMAN asked if tourists can buy Alaska artifacts and legally take them back to New York. What about an abandoned item? SENATOR OLSON answered if ivory is not raw and crafted into something, in general you can take it back to the state you came from, but in some states it has to be reported to U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). SENATOR GARDNER asked if his intention was to have the exemptions apply to every state preemptively or only to federal law with regards to the further resolve on page 2, line 14. 4:07:24 PM SENATOR OLSON said he would like the Alaska congressional delegation to exempt all of it across the states. 4:08:13 PM SUSIE SILOOK, representing herself, Tulalip, Washington, supported SJR 4. She is originally from Gamble, Alaska, and is a member of an artist advocacy group for Alaska Natives against the bans on ivory. This issue began for her when she heard Hawaii was banning walrus ivory, also. They told Hawaii that Alaska Natives are exempted under MMPA, but they were banned anyway. There is a lot of confusion about the bans. Some items are not banned, but people think they are. So, there is a de facto ban going on anyway. She has been told by both businesses and artists that the market is way down, so it is already hurting the market. Her research has revealed that these bans are an overreach by wildlife groups involved with the elephant ivory ban, which she has nothing against, but you don't have to ban all ivory worldwide, which their advertising says. MS. SILOOK said another issue is that it is hard to distinguish between the ivories, but she has a written document from the USFWS saying that one can absolutely distinguish between walrus and elephant ivory. 4:12:53 PM ALICE BIOFF, Kawerak Inc., Nome, Alaska, supported SJR 4. She is a member of the Alaska State Council of the Arts. She is a tribal member of the Native Village Koyukuk and grew up in Nome. She has been employed as a business planning specialist for Kawerak, the regional non-profit consortium of tribes for the Bering Straits region. She is privileged to work with artists entrepreneurs within the communities and the Council provides tools and resources to assist artists in continuing their work so they can sustain themselves, their families, and their communities. Walrus ivory harvested during subsistence hunting is one of the main materials artists entrepreneurs use to carve into unique traditional art work that has been recognized for its amazing craftsmanship throughout the world. These artists are economic development drivers in their communities and she sees firsthand the economic impact selling ivory has in the communities, but most importantly how the arts and crafts made with ivory keep traditions alive and strong: beautiful work being passed down from one generation to the next. Their art is woven into who they are as indigenous people, and having access to those materials is vital. MS. BIOFF said it would be a shame to see their ability to sell ivory collapse because of a lack of understanding of their culture that is unique and has a history of customs and traditions of working with nature and an ability to successfully self-manage a resource such as walrus. Please educate those who do not understand this, she urged. She thanked all the sponsors for bringing this resolution forward. 4:15:28 PM JOHN WAGHIYI, representing himself, Savoonga, Alaska, said he is a life-long subsistence provider for his family and community, and supported SJR 4. He said the State of Alaska needs to help educate and advocate for the indigenous community to make sure that their guaranteed right of survival is protected. He said St. Lawrence Island people are the only people in the world that harvest walrus - first - as a subsistence resource. It helps them maintain spiritual, physical, and psychological needs that keep them knowing who they are. They harvest more walrus than any other people in the world. The walrus ivory has been used for thousands of years and is used exclusively to help supplement their subsistence way of life. 4:18:12 PM DERA METALF, Program Director, Eskimo Walrus Commission, Nome, Alaska, supported SJR 4. She said the Walrus Commission has been around since 1978. She also serves on the Marine Mammal Commission as their special advisor on Native affairs. Alaska Natives are already facing difficulties with harvesting walrus and pressures because of climate change, and she wonders if these communities can even afford to continue hunting. But hunting is fundamental to the coastal communities from the meat to the blubber, skin to organs, and food to processing skin and tusks that are used in boats, guns, and jewelry, and handicrafts. These are critically important to them. She added that with the ice cover diminishing and changing as it has for the past few years, their hunters have to travel further distances to hunt. Walrus defines not only their local economies and way of life, but their food group resources and their cultural traditions including arts and crafts. CHAIR BISHOP closed public testimony and held SJR 4 in committee.