    [Senate Hearing 114-444]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

                                                            S. Hrg. 114-444

                          EXAMINING THE IMPACTS OF THE
                         FEDERAL AFRICAN ELEPHANT IVORY
                           BAN AND RELATED STATE LAWS

    =======================================================================

                                 FIELD HEARING

                                   before the

                          SUBCOMMITTEE ON FISHERIES,
                              WATER, AND WILDLIFE

                                     of the

                                  COMMITTEE ON
                          ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS
                              UNITED STATES SENATE

                        ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS

                                 SECOND SESSION

                                   __________

                                OCTOBER 20, 2016

                                   __________

      Printed for the use of the Committee on Environment and Public Works

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

           Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys
                                   __________

                             U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

    22-605 PDF                     WASHINGTON : 2017
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------
      For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing
      Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800;
             DC area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2104 Mail: Stop IDCC,
                              Washington, DC 20402-0001

                   COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS

                        ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS
                                 SECOND SESSION

                      JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma, Chairman
    DAVID VITTER, Louisiana              BARBARA BOXER, California
    JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming               THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware
    SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia  BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland
    MIKE CRAPO, Idaho                    BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont
    JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas               SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island
    JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama               JEFF MERKLEY, Oregon
    ROGER WICKER, Mississippi            KIRSTEN GILLIBRAND, New York
    DEB FISCHER, Nebraska                CORY A. BOOKER, New Jersey
    MIKE ROUNDS, South Dakota            EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts
    DAN SULLIVAN, Alaska

                     Ryan Jackson, Majority Staff Director
                   Bettina Poirier, Democratic Staff Director
                                  ----------

                 Subcommittee on Fisheries, Water, and Wildlife

                         DAN SULLIVAN, Alaska, Chairman
    JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming               SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island
    SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia  THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware
    JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas               BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland
    JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama               BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont
    ROGER WICKER, Mississippi            KIRSTEN GILLIBRAND, New York
    DEB FISCHER, Nebraska                CORY A. BOOKER, New Jersey
    MIKE ROUNDS, South Dakota            EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts
    JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma (ex        BARBARA BOXER, California (ex
        officio)                             officio)

                                C O N T E N T S

                                  ----------
                                                                       Page

                                OCTOBER 20, 2016

                               OPENING STATEMENTS

    Sullivan, Hon. Dan, U.S. Senator from the State of Alaska........     1
    Murkowski, Hon. Lisa, U.S. Senator from the State of Alaska......     3

                                   WITNESSES

    Worl, Rosita, PhD., President, Sealaska Heritage, Inc............     5
        Prepared statement...........................................     8
    Sweeney, Tara, Executive VP, External Affairs, ASRC..............    18
    Silook, Susie, Local Artist......................................    19
    Williams, Margaret, Program Managing Director, WWF...............    30
        Prepared statement...........................................    33

                              ADDITIONAL MATERIAL

    Statements:
        Sayers Tuzroyluk, Sr., President, Voice of the Artic Inupiat.    53
        Wildlife Conservation Society................................    55
        Vera Metcalf, Eskimo Walrus Commission.......................    56
        Melanie Bahnke, President, Kawerak, Inc.,....................    58
    Letters:
        Robert F. Soolook Jr., President, Native Village of Diomede..    64
        Dorthy Barr, Tribal Coordinator, Native Village of White
          Mountain...................................................    65
        Shawn Arnold, Superintedent, Nome Public Schools.............    66
    Resolutions:
        A Resolution Opposing the Inclusion of Walrus, Mammouth, and
          Mastodon Ivory in African Elephant Ivory Ban in the United
          States.....................................................    67
        A Resolution in Support of Eskimo Walrus Commission's
          Opposition of Incuding Walrus, Mammouth, and Mastodon Ivory
          in African Elephant Ivory Ban Laws in the United States....    69

      EXAMINING THE IMPACTS OF THE FEDERAL AFRICAN ELEPHANT IVORY BAN AND
                               RELATED STATE LAWS

                                  ----------

                           THURSDAY, OCTOBER 20, 2016

                                   U.S. Senate,
             Committee on Environment and Public Works,
                Subcommittee on Fisheries, Water, and Wildlife,
                                                        Washington, DC.
        The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:00 p.m. in
    the Northern Lights room, Carlson Center 2010 Second Avenue,
    Fairbanks, Alaska, Hon. Dan Sullivan (chairman of the
    subcommittee) presiding.
        Present: Senators Sullivan, and Murkowski.

                OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. DAN SULLIVAN,
                 U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF ALASKA

        Senator Sullivan. Good afternoon, everybody. I'm Senator
    Dan Sullivan. I'm very honored to be holding an official U.S.
    Senate hearing at AFN, and very honored to have so many friends
    and colleagues, and my Senate colleagues, Senator Murkowski
    here to discuss a very, very important issue for Alaska, for
    the Alaska Native community.
        And this is a hearing of the Subcommittee on Fisheries,
    Water, and Wildlife for the Environment and Public Works
    Committee of the U.S. Senate. And as I mentioned, no better
    place to be holding this hearing than here at AFN where we are
    surrounded by dozens of talented artists that are directly
    affected by the topic we are going to discuss today.
        As a matter fact, my wife, Julie, is here and showed me
    some of the ivory that she's already bought since being here
    this morning.
        So what we're talking about is, I think, a big issue where
    there's a lot of confusion. Earlier this year, the Federal
    Government finalized regulations that tightened trade in
    African elephant ivory, banning most commercial sales outright.
        These regulations have, in turn, unfortunately, and from
    our perspective, misguidedly spawned several State laws that
    broadly expand the types of banned ivories allowed in different
    states, well beyond the Federal regulation.
        And these bans now include walrus and mammoth ivory that
    are commonly used by many Alaska Native craftsmen and others to
    help with the culture and the economy of many of our
    communities and our State.
        While perhaps well-intentioned, these State bans have had
    the unintended consequences of limiting the ability to trade
    authentic articles of Natives handicraft, and in other cases,
    they have created confusion among the buyers who might think
    that importing all forms of ivory is prohibited.
        As a result, this is already beginning to reduce demand for
    authentic Alaska Natives handicrafts and clothing from
    tourists, from Alaskans, from collectors all over the country
    and, indeed, all over the world.
        I want to take a moment and recognize an important issue
    for this country, for the world, and that is that elephant
    poaching and the resulting illegal ivory trade in poached
    species, is a serious problem that needs to be addressed.
    Currently, the United States is doing this with mechanisms like
    the Convention on International Trade and Endangered Species,
    known as CITES, and continued international cooperation to
    conserve elephants as needed. Nobody argues that.
        But today, we will focus on an issue that goes well beyond
    conserving elephants, and, instead, imposes burdens on Alaska
    Natives and other Alaskan artisans without any justifiable
    corresponding conservation benefit for species.
        I've called this hearing to raise awareness of the impacts
    of broadly written State ivory bans and tho--the impacts that
    it has on Alaskans, and to help ensure that, as other states
    look at this issue, they do not move forward with such bans.
    And if they insist on doing that, such bans account for the
    impacts on Alaskans who rely on selling these products for
    their livelihood and cultural engagement.
        As I mentioned, the Fish and Wildlife Service finalized
    their new rule on the trade of African elephant ivory to and
    from the U.S. this past June. This rule, as the Fish and
    Wildlife Service, itself, notes, only impacts elephant ivory.
    It does not apply to Alaska Natives using other ivory or bones
    from animals to produce handicrafts.
        So the Federal regs are clear. However, soon after that reg
    was issued, other states began banning the selling of, quote,
    tooth or tusk from a species of elephant, hippopotamus,
    mammoth, walrus, whale, narwhal, or piece thereof, whether raw
    ivory or worked ivory, unquote. So that's what's happening in
    the states, and that covers all of us.
        By including walrus, mammoth, and whale, among the species
    subject to the ban, states like California and now New Jersey
    and others are starting to get in line, have gone well beyond
    the Federal standard, and have created an environment that is
    having a chilling effect on the Alaska Native handicraft market
    that we see is so vibrant just outside the halls of this
    hearing.
        As you all know, many Alaskan Natives not only rely on
    walrus as an important subsistence food source, but also depend
    on the economic benefits of selling worked ivory. Alaskans who
    realize economic benefits from selling worked mammoth ivory
    found during mining and foraging, also have this opportunity
    and it's not--just not in the craft shows. Just look at
    downtown Fairbanks in terms of what they sell.
        While data is limited on the full economic impact of these
    activities, what is clear is that many in rural and even urban
    Alaska receives significant economic benefits from working with
    and selling these products. In addition, walruses are not
    listed as endangered or threatened under the Endangered Species
    Act. Many people don't know that, but they're not listed.
        And the Marine Mammal Protection Act explicitly allows
    Alaska Natives to harvest walrus for subsistence purposes and
    permits the sale of authentic articles of Native handicraft
    factioned from them.
        States are following the lead of the Federal Government to
    regulate ivory sales. Yet, what seems clear and what this
    hearing hopes to highlight is that--is the restrictions
    pertaining to Alaska Natives, and non-Natives do not further
    the goal of conservation. Our goal here is to try and gain a
    better understanding of how these Federal and State laws affect
    Alaskans, and we want to raise awareness,not only here, but,
    importantly, in all the other states in the country as states
    consider further laws regarding the restricting trade and
    ivory.
        We also want to try to start to get commitments from the
    Federal Government agencies, like NOAA, Fish and Wildlife
    Service, Secretary Jewell who is here, to help us in the
    related NGO's, like the World Wildlife Fund--it's one of our
    witnesses today--to get the word out and push back on State
    laws that are hurting Alaskans, especially Alaska Natives, and
    yet, are having no positive impact on species conservation in
    Alaska.
        So I want to--I'm going to mention our--we have a great,
    great witness panel here today. We have a great turnout. I also
    want to mention we've had a lot of interest just in the last
    couple of days on this hearing, so we're going to keep the
    record for this Senate hearing open for the next 2 weeks, so
    whoever wants to submit testimony, we will get the word out on
    where you can submit that testimony. It's going to be to Pierce
    Wiegard, who is one of my staffers on this issue. His e-mail is
    pierce, p-i-e-r-c-e--wiegard, w-i-e-g-a-r-
    d@sullivan.senate.gov. (pierce--wiegard@sullivan.senate.gov)
    And if you didn't get all that, you can hit up Pierce at the
    end of this hearing.
        But what we--in all seriousness, we want to hear from as
    many Alaskans as possible and just--at the beginning of this
    hearing, for the record, I will submit for the record, the
    testimony of Vera Metcalf from Fairbanks, Alaska, her written
    testimony, and the testimony of Kawerak, Inc. Their written
    testimony for this hearing is going to be submitted for the
    record.
        And before we start with our panel of distinguished
    witnesses, who I want to thank, again, for coming, I do want to
    have the opportunity for my close friend and colleague, the
    Chairman of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee for the
    U.S. Senate, Senator Murkowski to say a few words on this
    important topic. Senator Murkowski.

               OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. LISA MURKOWSKI,
                 U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF ALASKA

        Senator Murkowski. Thank you, Senator Sullivan, for your
    leadership on this and for convening this important field
    hearing. For those who are not familiar with some of the
    process that goes on in the Senate, an opportunity to have a
    field hearing in one State to gather information for the
    committee record to be considered at a later point in time, is
    really key to the education that goes on.
        I think it's fair to say looking at the friends and the
    faces around the room, that most in this room here, today,
    probably most here in the Carlson Center, know and understand
    the implications of the confusion as you have outlined in your
    statements so clearly, the confusion that will be created and
    then the impact to our artisans,to those who have passed these
    traditions, this craftsmanship, this sharing down for decades,
    for generations, that we lose that.
        But we need to be part of a committed record. We need to
    get this information so that our colleagues who, whether they
    be from New Jersey or California where we are seeing some of
    the--these concerns and its confusion, really play out, so that
    they can understand directly from you as Alaskans.
        So I appreciate you highlighting this at this AFN
    Convention. I appreciate the witnesses and the testimony that
    they will bring. But I do want to reiterate the concern that
    you have raised here. It's one thing to have Federal
    regulations that are clear. And you hear a lot from your
    delegation talking about when the overreach of Federal
    regulations.
        It seems now that we are dealing with a little bit of
    overreach from states with regards to their regulations, and
    how we deal with this in a way that is respectful to what--
    where the states are coming from, but making sure that they
    understand the impact here, and, truly, I think some very
    unintended consequences that could have significant consequence
    to us.
        It kind of takes me back to a few AFNs ago, when you're out
    in the hall out there. We were pulled aside by those who were
    harvesting sea otters, harvesting those pelts, providing for a
    little bit of income for their families, but there was
    confusion with the interpretation of the regs from Fish and
    Wildlife. And what it did, was it sent a very, very chilling
    impact to those who were trying to provide for their
    families,trying to continue traditions that, again, were
    clearly allowed, but the confusion that it causes is very
    detrimental.
        So the effort that is underway today here is greatly
    appreciated. Appreciate your leadership on this. I'm not going
    to be able to stay for the whole hearing, but I'm going to stay
    for as long as my time allows me. Just thank you for that.
        Senator Sullivan. All right.
        Senator Murkowski. --opportunity to kind of horn in on your
    parade here.
        Senator Sullivan. We're glad--no, this is everybody's
    parade. We're just trying to raise awareness.
        Senator Murkowski. OK.
        Senator Sullivan. So we're very glad you're here. Well, I
    want to--as Senator Murkowski mentioned, this is an official
    Senate hearing coming to Alaska, so you don't have to travel to
    D.C. for it.
        So I really want to thank our panel of distinguished
    experts, and want to welcome Dr. Rosita Worl, President of
    Sealaska Heritage, Inc., Tara Sweeney, the Executive Vice
    President, External Affairs, Arctic Slope Regional Corporation,
    Susie Silook, an artist, a writer, who has given some great
    commentary in front of all of AFN just a couple minutes ago on
    this important topic, and Margaret Williams, the Arctic Program
    Managing Director of the World Wildlife Fund. We are very
    excited to hear from each of you.
        And I know some of you have a time limit, so Dr. Worl, if
    you want to begin your opening statement, and anything that you
    want to submit for the record, for the written record, we can
    do that, as well, before we begin questions. Dr. Worl.

              STATEMENT OF ROSITA WORL, PhD., PRESIDENT,
                        SEALASKA HERITAGE, INC.

        Rosita Worl. (Speaks Tlingit) Honorable Senator Sullivan,
    (speaks Tlingit), Lady of the land (speaks Tlingit),
        Senator Murkowski, my name is Rosita Kaahani Worl. I
    currently serve as the president of the Sealaska Heritage
    Institute. I also serve as chair of the Alaska Federation of
    Natives Subsistence Committee.
        Sealaska Heritage Institute is a nonprofit organization
    dedicated to the preservation and enhancement of Alaska Native
    cultures with goals of promoting cross cultural preservation
    and enhancement of cultures and diversity.
        The AFN Subsistence Committee is dedicated to the
    protection of Native subsistence rights, food security, and the
    use of byproducts of wildlife resources for cultural objects,
    clothing, and arts and crafts production and sale.
        Thank you for this opportunity to offer my comments on the
    adverse impacts on Alaska Native economic self-sufficiency that
    will come from the Federal African elephant ivory ban, and that
    will result from other bans by five State laws and additional
    states that are considering a ban.
        As I understand, the Federal ban relates to an African
    elephant ivory ban, while most State laws include all ivory,
    including both old and new walrus ivory that is used by Alaska
    Natives. A number of State bans also apply to mammoth ivory,
    including mastodon that is used by both Alaska Natives and non-
    Natives. I also understand that some states have included or
    have proposed to include whale, polar bear, and sea otter
    products.
        The array of Federal and State laws highlights one of the
    major problems. The differing legislation bans are confusing
    and, collectively, may serve as a deterrent to those who might
    be inclined to buy Alaska ivory art, and will only serve to
    seriously undermine the ivory art market. Suppression of the
    ivory market will be devastating to Alaska Native hunters,
    craftspeople, and artisans, and would be further disastrous if,
    in fact, whale, polar bear, and sea otter products are also
    banned.
        First, may I say--State that Alaska Natives firmly believe
    and support measures to ensure a healthy, sustainable African
    elephant population. Conservation and sustainability are values
    that are entrenched in our ancient societies that remain
    dependent on the use of natural resources for our livelihood
    and for our cultural survival.
        However, we do not believe that such measures to protect
    elephants should have an adverse impact on Alaska Native ivory
    carvers and the market for their products. I would like to
    believe that the advocates of the ivory ban that includes
    walrus, were unaware of the negative consequences on the ban--
    of the ban on Alaska Natives. I would like to believe that they
    appreciate the value of cultural diversity and support this
    cultural survival of Alaska's indigenous societies.
        Rural Alaska villages are economically depressed and high
    rates of unemployment are the norm. SHI studies have
    demonstrated that out-migration of villagers to urban centers
    has been intensified in the last decade, primarily as a result
    of the lack of economic opportunities.
        There is little prospect for economic development in our
    rural remote communities. Rural villages are characterized by
    high energy and transportation costs, and lack of
    infrastructure to support economic development. The production
    and exchange of arts and crafts is an ancient tradition that
    supported vibrant and sustainable indigenous communities
    throughout Alaska. It was expanded to include the sale of arts
    and crafts with the arrival of Westerners.
        Today, arts and crafts still play an even greater role in
    village economies. Walrus ivory, including mammoth and mastodon
    ivory, are also used as creative high art expressions that are
    widely coveted in the art world.
        I must emphasize that walrus is a major food source among
    northern and western coastal communities. In some communities,
    walrus is the primary food source. Walrus skins are used to
    make skin boats that are essential for hunting and travel. Its
    ivory is also important as a source of income, but above all,
    walrus is prized for the food security provides.
        Arts and craft production and sale, including ivory, is one
    means of providing modest, but critically financial benefits to
    Natives who otherwise lack economic opportunities. While we
    lack hard data on the value of ivory production, we know that
    ivory plays a significant role in Alaska's small-scale
    subsistence economies, and the annual arts and crafts tourist
    market that is well over $32 million.
        We know that village artisans can make up to 35,000 to
    50,000 dollars annually, and that those earnings are widely
    shared among family and community members. SHI is intimately
    familiar with the benefits of the arts and craft markets to
    Native people through our sustainable arts projects that we
    have implemented, including basketry, seal skin, sea otter, and
    wood carving as a means to achieve economic self-sufficiency in
    our community.
        We have also initiated efforts to ensure that artists have
    access to ivory. When SHI first learned of the California
    initiative to ban the sale of all ivory, we immediately
    contacted various officials and lawmakers to oppose the
    legislation. Our efforts were far too late. Even if we had the
    adequate notice, it is a certainty that we could not match or
    overcome the international and national public relations and
    political efforts supported by the advocates of the ivory ban.
        The existing ivory ban by several states and a national
    ban, pose a serious threat to the survival of Native
    communities that are primarily dependent on a subsistence
    economy and the sale of arts and crafts. That ban adds to the
    ongoing threats facing Alaska Natives that is associated with
    climate change, and is increasingly evident in our coastal
    communities.
        While we support measures to ensure the survival of the
    elephant and other animals, the survival of Alaska Native
    communities must be considered. We, respectfully, offer the
    following recommendations:
        Include language in any legislation or regulations related
    to African elephant ivory that provides for an explicit Alaska
    Native exemption for legally harvested walrus and ivory, and
    ensures that the language is consistent with the Marine Mammal
    Protection Act of 1972.
        Initiate action to ensure that all State laws be consistent
    with the MMPA and provide for an Alaska Native exemption.
        Require the Indian Arts and Craft Board to develop a public
    relations effort to inform the public of Alaska Natives
    sustainable use and dependency on the sale of Alaskan ivory,
    including mammoth and mastodon and the critical role Alaska
    ivory plays in the survival of indigenous communities. (Speaks
    Tlinget).
        [The prepared statement of Ms. Worl follows:]

      [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Senator Sullivan. All right. Thank you very much. That was
    outstanding testimony. I look forward to having a further
    discussion when we are discussing these issues. Mrs. Sweeney,
    thank you.

               STATEMENT OF TARA SWEENEY, EXECUTIVE VP,
                         EXTERNAL AFFAIRS, ASRC

        Tara Sweeney. Thank you. Chairman Sullivan and Senator
    Murkowski, thank you for the opportunity to provide testimony
    today.
        My name is Tara Sweeney and I serve as the Executive Vice
    President for Arctic Slope Regional Corporation or ASRC. ASRC
    is an Alaskan Native corporation established pursuant to the
    Alaska Natives Claims Settlement Act of 1971.
        The creation of Alaska Native corporations was mandated by
    Congress as a means to promote the health, education, or
    welfare of our Alaska Native shareholders. And at ASRC, we take
    that mandate seriously. We work to go beyond promoting health,
    education, and welfare of our shareholders. We actively pursue
    and create strategic partnerships and invest in initiatives
    aimed at improving the quality of life of our shareholders.
        ASRC is the largest Alaskan owned company in the State and
    we have 10,000 employees nationwide, and approximately 13,000
    Inupiat shareholders from the North Slope region of Alaska.
        Our region is strong in its Inupiat identity, rich in
    culture, with a deep-seated tradition of subsistence, including
    the harvesting of terrestrial and marine mammals like walrus,
    which provides much-needed sustenance for our families. And
    through the lawful harvest of its ivory, it provides financial
    assistance to families in some of the most remote and
    disconnected communities in this Nation.
        I'm not an expert on African elephant ivory. And to be
    clear, ASRC does not support the unsustainable practice of
    harvesting African elephants simply for its ivory.
        But I'm not here to oppose the ban. Instead, I'm here to
    help shine a light on the unintended consequences of State laws
    that broadly ban the sale of ivory, and the unintended
    consequences of these laws on Alaska's first people.
        Since the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service banned the
    importation of African elephant ivory, there seems to be a wave
    of cultural imperialism sweeping the country with serious
    consequences for Alaska Natives. States, compelled by animal
    welfare groups to end harvesting practices in other parts of
    the world, regardless of sustainability, are establishing by
    legislative fiat, that sales of all ivory are illegal, and
    implementing policies at the State level that adversely impact
    Alaska Native communities and obstruct the ability of Alaska
    Natives to engage in free commerce.
        As a lead--as leaders in the Senate, both Chairman Sullivan
    and Senator Murkowski, I believe it is your responsibility to
    help us draw the distinction between banned elephant ivory and
    domestic lawfully harvested walrus ivory.
        We must act to ensure that elephant ivory is not somehow
    considered to be synonymous with walrus ivory, and protect our
    hunters and artisans from being targeted for carrying on a
    sustainable and culturally and conomically valuable practice.
        We are seeing states like New Jersey and California ban all
    types of ivory, and this has real life impacts on your
    constituents. Our rural Alaska is the poster child for
    challenging economic environments. We need to support
    employment opportunities that support and sustain our
    traditional way of life and protects us from the social
    consequences of a weak economy.
        Therefore, when our rural residents and shareholders
    enhance an ivory product after the lawful harvest of walrus,
    the commerce that accompanies the sale of an Alaskan ivory
    product has meaningful impacts on the livelihoods of our
    people.
        Since 2010, ASRC alone has spent over $620,000 to support
    the small-scale and sustainable ivory art sales of our
    shareholders. This beautiful art from our region, rightfully,
    brings a premium and, yet, prices keep getting depressed
    because policy leaders have wielded a blunt weapon to fight the
    unrelated global trade in unsustainable ivory.
        This is just one example of how Federal policies impact
    Alaska Native lives. Another example can be seen in the
    confiscation of ivory seal or other marine mammal products by
    uninformed Federal officers attempting to enforce the Marine
    Mammal Protection Act.
        For example, by confiscating products at the U.S. Canada
    border, taking them from Alaska Natives who are lawfully
    traveling across the border, items that Natives can rightfully
    possess within the U.S. Since 2000, nearly 1,200 marine mammal
    products have been confiscated by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
    Service.
        Senator Sullivan, Senator Murkowski, as always, I sincerely
    appreciate your leadership on these issues, and thank you for
    champion--championing issues like this for the Alaska Native
    community.
        I do know that you're committed to ensuring that the Alaska
    Native voice is heard at the national level, and is heard by
    Members of Congress who represent all 50 states. And it's with
    your leadership that we can carry this message throughout the
    halls of Congress and to states around the Nation that are
    trying to do the right thing, but, ultimately, are hurting our
    communities, our economy, and our way of life.
        Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments.
        Senator Sullivan. Thank you. Thank you, Ms. Sweeney. And
    thank you for the--I didn't know about the 1,200 marine mammal
    products confiscate--confiscation, which is another issue we
    will be looking at. Ms. Silook, you have a--your opportunity to
    deliver your testimony. Thank you.

                STATEMENT OF SUSIE SILOOK, LOCAL ARTIST

        Ms. Silook. Thank you, Senators, for inviting me and for me
    to be given this opportunity to speak on this issue. I didn't
    prepare anything. I've done too much writing on this and I'm,
    frankly, burned out.
        But I would just like to share a little bit of what I've
    learned along the way in our Sikuliiq Advocacy. We are an
    artist group. I'm also from St. Lawrence Island, born and
    raised. I was raised eating walrus. My father and my brothers
    are artists; I am also, of 30 years. My mother sewed, and in
    the sway, without any government aid, also working full-time
    jobs, and the subsistent thing, they raised eight of us. So I'm
    well aware of who this is impacting; it's me; it's us.
        And the old ivory on St. Lawrence Island that's in the
    ground--St. Lawrence Island is possibly the only legal place
    you can get that, because we own subsurface rights to the
    island based on rejecting the cash settlement during the Land
    Claims Settlement Act.
        And back in 1996, I worked out a grant with the tribal
    government and we're trying to address the feeling that too
    much of this resource was leaving the island without enough
    money being given back into the community.
        But as we try to work that, we realized that everyone in
    our community depends upon that seasonal activity. You know,
    even elders could do this, you know, going--because the vast
    majority of the material that's in the ground is unworked raw
    whale bone and ivory, and this is an important resource, in
    addition to the new harvesting that we do with the walrus.
        So we couldn't develop any law enforcement around that. Not
    only do we not have the--did we not have the capacity to carry
    that out, but we didn't want to make our own people criminals.
    So that old ivory is more important than people realize, and
    the old whale bone. And I just wanted to throw that out there.
        And I also want to point out walrus ivory is entirely
    distinguishable from walrus and mammoth ivory. It does not
    contain that crosshatching and it's marbled on the inside. Part
    of the argument is that they have to ban walrus ivory because
    all ivory looks alike or, you know, something to that effect.
    That's not true.
        They're saying that a lot of the illegal elephant ivory is
    coming in disguised as mammoth ivory. And there might be
    something to that, because I've never seen elephant ivory. I've
    seen mammoth ivory, but there might be something to that angle.
    But you have to remove walrus ivory from those descriptions,
    because it is visually distinguishable. It doesn't have the
    crosshatching. It's got the cracks on it. And when you open it
    up, there's a core inside that's different from the other
    ivories. But that's both new and old. Mammoth ivory, we use a
    lot, too, but, you know, in my circle, we--that's not as
    important to us as the old ivory and the walrus ivory.
        And like they've mentioned, this--they are also banning
    quail, and many artists use quail bone. I do myself, also.
    That's going to impact communities quite a bit. And I can't
    believe they're doing that. A lot of this is ancestral
    material, also from the ground, just like the mammoth; it's
    extinct. But it's almost like they're making the mammoth a
    protected species now. And this is ridiculous.
        Senator Sullivan. The mammoth has been extinct for how many
    years?
        Susie Silook. What's happening, though there's something--
    happening because of the ban on mammoth ivory, there--and
    because--but because it's--China is the main--so, we are told
    anyway. I'm beginning to doubt everything I'm told. China is
    the main consumer of elephant ivory, because their middle class
    increased dramatically and that is a status symbol for them, so
    that's why there's a lot of elephant ivory there.
        And they're also saying that there was a sale back in--I
    think it was 1999, they did illegal sale of ivory--elephant
    ivory that came from food sources and--not food sources,
    elephants that died from natural causes, because many elephants
    died from natural causes in Africa.
        So they did a mass sale of these two--China and Japan, and
    then I've read differing accounts on how this spiked the
    poaching of African elephants. One report says as high as 16--
    60 percent, but I've also seen like 17 percent, so it's
    unclear.
        And the--you know, when they were passing this law we
    weren't invited to the table----
        Senator Sullivan. Yes.
        Susie Silook.--you know, that Department of Interior said
    they looked at their duty to inform us and decided this would
    not affect us, so we were not invited to the table.
        Whereas, they do mention there are a few ivory artists in
    America, and they were given a voice. These are non-Native
    artists that worked with elephant ivory and they were given a
    voice. So that's a problem, that whole tribal consultation
    thing, that----
        Senator Sullivan. Yes.
        Susie Silook. And, then, you know, if this was accident--if
    this was unintentional, why then all our efforts toward Fish
    and Wildlife and President Obama have gone completely
    unaddressed?
        Senator Sullivan. Yes.
        Susie Silook. Completely. This is a president that's
    determined to be the conservation president, and he is in bed
    with these wildlife organizations that are--that's actually the
    source of these bans.
        The International Union for the Conservation of Nature,
    IUCN, they just had their major convention in Hawaii. President
    Obama gave the keynote address for that. And he is quoted in--I
    hope I get this right. There's some names I'm going to get
    wrong. There's just so much out there. It's like the United
    States Alliance of Fish and Wildlife, something along those
    effects. He created that.
        He was also there quoted as saying, we're here to eliminate
    all ivory markets worldwide. But they go further than that. If
    you look into--if you do any research into their sites, they
    want to eliminate all wildlife product markets worldwide. They
    are not going to stop at walrus ivory. And, in fact, they were
    saying they were hoping that states would drag in other animals
    into this ban.
        There are two new laws that are coming up, and I think they
    are significant when you look at the whole picture, because one
    of them is called the Native Act. You know, that's the tourism
    act for Natives. That's passing or passed.
        And then there's END. Have you heard of END? Eliminate,
    Neutralize, and Disrupt wildlife trafficking; END. That's on
    the table now. So that's another law that we are going to have
    to look at in terms of our resources.
        There really needs to be Native American representatives in
    the U.S. Fish and Wildlife, in everything that has to do with
    wildlife. You know, there--OK. I wrote--instead of writing
    something, I wrote a list of concern--a list of
    recommendations----
        Senator Sullivan. OK.
        Susie Silook. --based on all my research that could help
    with this.
        Senator Sullivan. Good.
        Susie Silook. So I'll just get to that rather than ramble.
        Senator Sullivan. Well, we'll have plenty of time for Q and
    A here, too. But if you want to get to the recommendations,
    that's perfect.
        Susie Silook. OK. CITES----
        Senator Sullivan. Yes.
        Susie Silook. --they need to develop an indigenous peoples'
    policy somehow. Any time some animal comes up that they are
    discussing, there needs to be indi--if it does concern
    indigenous people that use that as a subsistence resource, they
    need to be present and their voices heard. And I think the
    United States should write a resolution to this effect, and
    then if they don't honor that, we should pull out. That's my
    recommendation.
        Indigenous people--these wildlife organizations, the way
    that they carry out conservation, the data shows based on
    MacArthur Foundation research--there's a paper on this, 50
    pages--that many times, it results in displacement of
    indigenous people from their territorial lands, and also
    severance from their natural resources. They, then, become
    poachers of their own food sources, and encroaches on their own
    land. This happens repeatedly.
        Even when those organizations purport to adopt the United
    Nations indigenous peoples' rights, what (indiscernible) you
    know, that thing, they recognize that they haven't been doing
    the best in terms of addressing indigenous peoples' concerns,
    so they've said they've adopted that.
        But in both this recent IUCN convention in Hawaii and also
    at the CITES, I couldn't get anybody from Alaska to go. I
    tried. But ICC Can--Canadian Inuit Circumpolar Conference, they
    were at the IUCN in Hawaii, and they were treated as traitors
    to the cause when they brought up our concerns about this
    impacting our rights. So CITES----
        Senator Sullivan. Yes.
        Susie Silook. --that whole--really, it needs to be
    addressed. OK. And then, of course, U.S. Fish and Wildlife with
    the tribal consultation, I e-mailed Bruce Dale (ph). He's the
    man that attends the CITES----
        Senator Sullivan. Right.
        Susie Silook. --conventions about this issue. And I asked
    him to be responsible to our communities and to raise this--
    raise awareness at CITES, the fact that all language that is--
    it's like Rosita said, you know, anytime the issue of elephant
    ivory comes up, it has to be differentiated from----
        Senator Sullivan. Yes.
        Susie Silook. --walrus ivory to remove us from that--any
    association with that, because it's not--we're not poachers and
    we're not sport hunters.
        Senator Sullivan. Yes.
        Susie Silook. Well, let me talk about sports hunters for a
    minute. OK. So the elephants are listed as either--under CITES,
    they are listed as either category I or category II. Category I
    is--means that they are endangered.
        OK. So why, then, in countries where they are listed as
    category I, they are allowing sports hunting? Americans can go
    and head hunt two elephants a year. And then this ban doesn't
    necessarily ban ivory sales intraState. It does--in the State,
    if I'm getting that right----
        Senator Sullivan. Yes.
        Susie Silook. --in their states. So they can bring it to
    their State and who knows what's going to happen from there.
    They're saying they allow these kinds of trophy hunting for
    purposes of conservation in those areas where they are trying
    to protect the elephants.
        Senator Sullivan. So, Ms. Silook, can we--I'm going to get
    to Ms. Williams' testimony, and then we're going to open up for
    more questions. And then if you have----
        Susie Silook. Yes.
        Senator Sullivan.--additional comments----
        Susie Silook. No problem.
        Senator Sullivan. --is that fine?
        Susie Silook. That's no----
        Senator Sullivan. So thank you, again, very much for your
    testimony. And I think Senator Murkowski has to step out, so--
    --
        Susie Silook. I did----
        Senator Sullivan. --thank you for coming. And----
        Susie Silook. If I might interrupt, I did submit my letter
    to the president as written material, so that is there also.
        Senator Sullivan. Oh, good. Well, we will submit that for
    the record here.
        [The referenced letter follows:]

     [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Susie Silook. OK. Thank you.
        Senator Sullivan. Thank you. I look forward to reading
    that. Ms. Williams.

                STATEMENT OF MARGARET WILLIAMS, PROGRAM
                         MANAGING DIRECTOR, WWF

        Margaret Williams. Thank you, Chairman Sullivan. And thank
    you for the opportunity and thanks to members of the committee
    for this opportunity to testify today.
        I'm here representing World Wildlife Fund, the largest
    private conservation organization working internationally to
    protect wildlife and wildlife habitats. We work in more than
    100 countries and have the support of over five million members
    worldwide.
        World Wildlife Fund, otherwise known as WWF has over 40
    years of experience in elephant conservation. But we've been
    engaged in this part of the world for about 30 years; we have
    an office in Anchorage and we focus on Arctic conservation.
        We collaborate closely with many partners throughout the
    State, including Alaska Native organizations, Native
    corporations, coastal communities, and others, in Bristol Bay,
    the Bering Strait, and the Chukchi and the Beaufort Seas.
        We have great respect and appreciation for the many people
    that sub--maintain a subsistence way of life. Indeed, WWF
    recognizes that sustainable use is a powerful incentive for
    conservation, including among hunters. WWF respects and
    appreciates the work of the Eskimo Walrus Commission and the
    U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service toward their co-management
    goals.
        As you know, on June 6th of this year, the Fish and
    Wildlife Service finalized a revised 4(d) rule for African
    elephants under the Endangered Species Act that institutes a
    near total ban on commercial trade in African elephant ivory
    within the United States.
        WWF strongly supports that ruling for three reasons:

        First, we see it as critical to ensuring that the U.S.
    consumers are not engaged unwittingly or wittingly in driving
    the illegal trade of African elephant ivory. We see the Federal
    rule as essential to help spur complementary conservation
    actions by major ivory consumer nations, including China. And
    we believe that the Fish and Wildlife Service is no way a
    threat, legally, to Alaska Native carvers.
        And I'd like to come back to all of the really important
    points made here about the confusion and misunderstanding of
    the interpretation of this regulation.
        But it's important to consider the context of this recent
    Federal ban. African elephant ivory--African elephants are
    currently facing the worst poaching crisis in a generation. And
    as was mentioned, there had been a previous decline in the
    1980's. A ban on the sale of ivory was put in place, and that
    did help with the recovery of elephants.
        But in the last decade, we have seen a new and very acute
    poaching crisis emerge. Just last month, a major report of the
    International Union for the Conservation of Nature was
    released, estimating of the crash in the elephant population by
    over 100,000. Other reports estimate that, in a 3-year period,
    alone, in the last decade, up to 35 elepha--35,000 elephants
    were poached in a single year.
        African elephants have declined by two-thirds--forest
    elephants, rather, and Tanzania has seen a 50 to 60 percent
    decline of its elephants. So the problem is really at a crisis
    point.
        The illegal trade in elephant ivory is part of an eight to
    ten billion dollar tra--annual trade in illegal wildlife
    products. This trade is one of the top five transnational
    crimes globally run by sophisticated criminal syndicates that
    helps to finance industrial scale poaching and armed
    insurgencies in Africa.
        That National Intelligence Community in the U.S. has even
    connected ivory trafficking to financing for terrorist
    activities in Africa. Ivory consumption in China is the primary
    driver of illegal trade in ivory today, and China remains the
    key for stopping the growing poaching crisis facing Africa's
    elephants.
        The United States, which historically was one of the
    primary consumers of ivory products, elephant ivory that is,
    remains a destination for significant amounts of illegal ivory.
    So the Fish and Wildlife responded by issuing its revised rule
    and instituting this near total ban on commercial trade in
    elephant ivory.
        Fish and Wildlife Service has, effectively, shifted the
    burden on the seller to demonstrate that items made from
    African elephant ivory are, in fact, legal to sell under
    Federal law. And there are some exemptions, which I can explain
    in a Q and A period.
        Perhaps one of the greatest impacts of this revised rule
    has been to help spur reciprocal and complementary actions by
    other demand countries, such as China. For example, up to the
    last year, China--until the past year,
        China pointed out to the U.S. our own inadequate regulatory
    regime. And more recently, China has taken steps in following
    the U.S. actions which are aimed at phasing out its domestic
    ivory market.
        And in September of last year, the U.S. and China issued a
    joint statement on their commitment to enact a near complete
    ivory trade ban in each country, again, for elephant ivory
    only.
        Let me emphasize that the Fish and Wildlife Service has
    made explicit that the revised rule applies only to African
    elephant ivory and will not impact activities with other type
    of ivory. And, again, with additional time, I--during the Q and
    A, I could read some excerpts from the Fish and Wildlife
    material.
        So, in conclusion, African elephants are in crisis.
        U.S. con--and U.S. consumers have played an unwitting role
    in driving the African elephants into the situation. The Fish
    and Wildlife Service rule institutes this near total ban on the
    trade as an essential and reasonable response to present to--to
    prevent the U.S. from further driving the crisis.
        Fish and Wildlife Service has also made it explicit that
    the new rule should have no impact on Alaska Native carvers of
    walrus, mammoth, or mastodon ivory. WWF completely supports
    this position and encourages state governments that may be
    considering their own ivory bans, to take the Federal approach
    into consideration when crafting state-level regulations, and
    to take guidance from Alaska's walrus co-management partners,
    while engaging meaningfully with the Alaska--the Eskimo Walrus
    Commission and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Region 7.
        So WWF looks forward to continuing to work closely with
    Alaska Native communities on the conservation of Arctic
    ecosystems to ensure healthy wildlife populations and
    sustainable communities connected to those wildlife
    populations. Thank you, again, for the opportunity to speak.
        [The prepared statement of Ms. Williams follows:]

       [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Senator Sullivan. Well, thank you, Ms. Williams. And,
    again, I don't think anyone here is--do you have time for one
    question?
        Rosita Worl. OK.
        Senator Sullivan. Because I really want to get to an
    important question. I don't think anyone here has opposed the
    elephant ivory poaching issue.
        The purpose of the hearing is to strategize and come up
    with ideas on how we make sure that what's happening, we can
    either roll it back or prevent it from continuing, because it's
    clearly hurting Alaska Natives, Alaska citizens.
        Dr. Worl, I just wanted--you mentioned, in your testimony,
    you reached out to California, you reached out to the
    officials.
        Rosita Worl. Yes.
        Senator Sullivan. What I really want to try and get to is,
    in your experience--and any of the witnesses can jump in on
    this, but I know you have to run, and I really want to just get
    your views on this.
        Do you think that the states that are starting to implement
    this ban, this broad ban, are they doing it unintentionally? Do
    they think that, oh shoot, we made a mistake; oh, darn, we can
    fix this. Or do you think they fully know what they're doing
    and they are putting a total ban for reasons that Ms. Silook
    mentioned, which the ultimate goal here is a ban on all ivory,
    whale bone, and everything?
        So what do you think the intention is of the legislators in
    California, in New Jersey? Because I think our strategy,
    really, will depend on, are these states making a mistake and
    we just need to go explain to them and they'll fix it, or is
    that their goal anyway? And what do you think in your
    experience is happening?
        Rosita Worl. Senator, in the case of California, I think
    they were very much aware that there was Alaska Natives who use
    ivory, but they chose--they said our--it was kind of a value
    statement that we used it, and they just chose to ignore it.
        Senator Sullivan. So it wasn't a mistake?
        Rosita Worl. No.
        Senator Sullivan. They knew?
        Rosita Worl. They knew.
        Senator Sullivan. And then here's my next question to
    followup on that. Who--what are the advocacy groups--And maybe
    Ms. Williams or anyone else, what are the--which advocacy
    groups are driving the full ban? I mean, it's not you guys, is
    it?
        Margaret Williams. No. I--and I do not know the answer to
    that.
        Susie Silook. You don't? Why?
        Margaret Williams. No. Well, we're allowing
    (indiscernible). (General laughter)
        Senator Sullivan. No, it's actually a really--it's a really
    important question. We need to know this, right?
        Margaret Williams. Perhaps--I cannot speak on behalf of
    other groups, but the World Wildlife Fund is not promoting an
    all-out ban. I mean, we've tried to make it clear that we--I
    hope in my testimony I communicated that we certainly don't
    oppose--that we would like to see very clear communication
    about that exemption.
        It seems--I'm--I guess I'm also surprised that there has
    been--and I'm regretting for you that you have had such a poor
    reception on this issue from the administration, because I
    think--I've seen in the Arctic policy and the effort to really
    listen to Alaska Native communities, and with the Arctic policy
    about promoting sustainable Arctic communities.
        I think there would be a more receptive ear, maybe perhaps
    now, I don't know. But I, actually--World Wildlife Fund is not
    an animal welfare organization and we don't collaborate with
    them very closely, so I can't name which groups are promoting
    such a State ban.
        Senator Sullivan. Do you guys know?
        Rosita Worl. I don't know which one, but I will tell you
    that maybe it shows my ignorance, but I view all of the
    wildlife conservation groups about the same. We just finished
    our Sealaska land legislation, and I was just totally amazed,
    you know, at the resistance from the environmental conserva--
    and, I guess, there's some difference between environmental
    conservation groups. I'm sorry, I can't make that distinction,
    because what I found is they seem to be uniformly opposed to
    just, you know, Native use of our land and resources.
        Senator Sullivan. Well, I would agree with that.
        Tara Sweeney. Sir--
        Rosita Worl. I'm sorry, I have to go.
        Senator Sullivan. OK. Thank you, again, for your testimony.
    Sorry this has run a little long, but it's very important. And
    we'll work together, all of us, on a strategy on this.
        Rosita Worl. OK. Thank you.
        Senator Sullivan. Great.
        Tara Sweeney. So, sir, just one point. It--I cannot
    remember a time in which ASRC has been aligned,
    philosophically, with an organization like WWF. I mean, this is
    historic----
        Senator Sullivan. Yes.
        Tara Sweeney. --in the sense that I'm so pleased to hear
    Margaret say that they are supportive of the sustainable
    harvest of Alaskan walrus, and then the byproducts that come
    with it, and recognizing the impact that it has on the Native
    community. To me, that's amazing.
        Senator Sullivan. Yes.
        Tara Sweeney. We've never--and we've sat at different
    hearing tables and testified on opposite ends of the spectrum
    she has with Richard Glenn (ph), with me, on different issues.
        Senator Sullivan. Yes.
        Tara Sweeney. And so as we look to the World Wildlife Fund,
    it's no secret that they have an enormous network.
        Senator Sullivan. Yes.
        Tara Sweeney. And when I'm talking about helping us
    distinguish between elephant ivory and the importance of
    Alaskan ivory to the Alaska Native community, their network is
    enormous. And, perhaps, what we can do is look for ways to
    partner with----
        Senator Sullivan. Yes.
        Tara Sweeney.--WWF to get the word out to their network,
    which, of course, could impact other State policy decisions
    down the road, and so----
        Senator Sullivan. Let me followup on that. Ms. Williams,
    would be willing to do what Mrs. Sweeney mentioned, which I
    think is a great idea, which is use your network, your guys'
    power on this issue, if there's alignment? And I think it's
    great. Actually, it's unusual in the EPW hearing like this
    where all the witnesses agree. Usually, they don't, just so you
    guys know. Normally, there's a battle. This is quite unusual,
    but it's good.
        But let me ask a related question for any and all of you.
    What more can the Federal Government do? Do you think the feds
    were also saying, hey, this is a mistake? Or do you think
    there's elements of the Federal Government who want a total ban
    as well?
        And I mention that because Secretary Jewell is here, all
    right. And if everybody who sees her in the hallways in the
    next 2 days, mentions this to her, she'll get the message. I,
    sometimes don't always think that what they tell us is what
    their real intention is. So do you think they really want to
    help us on this as well? Is that--I mean, I'll open that up to
    all three of you.
        Susie Silook. They haven't said a thing. You know, we've
    notified them. I--you know----
        Senator Sullivan. But you don't think they do?
        Susie Silook. This issue was raised in the Arctic
    Ministerial meeting that was at----
        Senator Sullivan. Yes.
        Susie Silook. --the science meeting. Gail Anagik brought
    that. You know, she got information from me and she raised that
    there. And then there's been several different ways that we've
    gotten it to the White House and there's been absolute silence
    there, as well as from U.S. Fish and Wildlife.
        She says that U.S. Fish and Wildlife has made this
    explicitly clear. The only place I see that is in some of the
    places that I have to research on the internet for. They've
    never come out publicly and said, wait a minute, people, this
    does not involve walrus ivory.
        Senator Sullivan. So you think they're being a little
    passive?
        Susie Silook. No. They're entirely ignoring us at this
    point. I have yet to see----
        Senator Sullivan. Worse than passive?
        Susie Silook. --any action from them on this issue; none.
        Senator Sullivan. OK. Do you agree----
        Margaret Williams. They----
        Senator Sullivan.--with that, Ms. Williams.
        Margaret Williams. Sure. Chairman Sullivan and to my
    esteemed colleagues, I just wanted to thank Tara for
    recognizing that. And I do think we're very much on the same
    page.
        And just for the record, I--I'm sorry that the--most of the
    people who left, because I think the World Wildlife Fund is--
    works very collaborative with many communities. We support
    subsistence harvest in the sustainable way. We recognize how
    important that livelihood is for nutrition and food security
    and culture.
        And, I, myself, have been beneficiaries of many hospitable,
    generous hosts around the Arctic. So I really feel that it's--
    WWF is distinguished and many other conservation groups share
    that--the philosophy that conservation use--sustainable use is
    an incentive for conservation.
        So--but I--just maybe I could read something from Fish and
    Wildlife published materials because I--it does actually
    specify the issue of exemptions.
        So according to the agency's published materials, the rule
    regulates only African elephants and African elephant ivory.
    Asian elephants and parts or products from Asian elephants,
    including ivory, are regulated separately under the ESA.
        Ivory from marine species, such as walrus, is also
    regulated separately under the Marine Mammal Protection Act,
    and I think that's very important that MMPA is a key here.
        Ivory from extinct species, such as mammoths, is not
    regulated under statutes. So it, specifically, says that ivory
    from mammoth is not regulated under statutes implemented by the
    service. So I think there is a lot of misunderstanding.
        Senator Sullivan. Well, let me ask this.
        Margaret Williams. OK.
        Senator Sullivan. I don't want to be disrespectful here,
    but just to--we're limited on time. What more can the Federal
    Government--what more can Secretary Jewell--what more can Dan
    Ash--it's one thing to put out a notice in the code of Federal
    regulations and nobody reads it. It's another thing that we
    know that it's already negatively impacting a very important
    element of the Alaska economy and cultural life.
        What more do you three recommend that the Federal
    Government--the Federal agencies--I'm certainly going to raise
    this her and Dan Ash, the Director of Fish and Wildlife
    Service, on the negative impact. But what more do you think
    they can be doing to proactively help us, or do you think that
    they're not that interested? It sounds like the President Obama
    statement makes it sound like he might have a goal of banning
    all ivory or something along those lines, which I think would
    be very----
        Susie Silook. All----
        Senator Sullivan.--disappointing.
        Susie Silook. All countries in Africa that are part of
    CITES, they have to come up with these things called the
    National Ivory Action Plans, NIAPs. And they're identified as
    either source transit or destination. And depending on what
    they are, depends on what the creation of that particular NIA--
    (cell phone rings) I'm sorry about my phone--will be--the plan
    will be in their country, because we were not identified as a
    source country, even though we are.
        We don't get that plan and we don't get that funding. We
    need a National Ivory Action Plan for the United States for
    walrus ivory.
        Senator Sullivan. OK.
        Susie Silook. And so this provides for capacity building
    for--in this case, we should have someone who is always looking
    at the new laws that are coming up, and also what the wildlife
    organizations are emoting through their e-mail systems----
        Senator Sullivan. Yes.
        Susie Silook. --mass e-mail system for the mass public to
    do. They use these behavioral--these--President Obama mentioned
    this also. We're going to change behaviors. If you go into
    TRAFFIC, T-R-A--you know, it's capital letters and it's
    affiliated with like IUCN and all these other people. They
    menti--they show you how you can change people's behaviors.
    It's a science.
        OK. They're applying that because I started getting e-mails
    from them. They're turning the public--this is the other part
    of it. They're turning the American public against wildlife
    products, without any education on--
        Senator Sullivan. Yes.
        Susie Silook. --the complex nature of some these--and I
    hate using that term, even, anymore, you know, wildlife
    products, you know. And then we're mentioned as being ecosystem
    people, you know, in some of their literature, like we're the
    other, you know.
        So there needs to a National Ivory Action Plan for Alaska
    Native people. It needs to be funded, fully funded so that we
    can do a mass educational campaign nationally. And that should
    include posters like some of these other countries, posters at
    seaports, airports. We need training. The seal products are
    being confiscated out of San Francisco. The seal products are
    totally legal for us, but they're being confused with the EU
    bans on the seal products.
        So that points to a need to train----
        Senator Sullivan. Yes.
        Susie Silook. --security personnel.
        Senator Sullivan. That's Federal agents doing banning.
        Susie Silook. Right. And also tourist personnel, so
    there's--and they've also trained prosecutors and police in
    some of these countries, you know. So, you know, there needs
    to--that needs to happen. I have it written down.
        Senator Sullivan. Mrs. Sweeney, do you have any other
    recommendations on Federal actions right now----
        Tara Sweeney. Actually, I do.
        Senator Sullivan.--agency actions?
        Tara Sweeney. I have two, the first being, yes, if
    Secretary Jewell is here, it's important for the Department of
    Interior to come out and make a statement----
        Senator Sullivan. Yes.
        Tara Sweeney. --that----
        Senator Sullivan. Make a statement.
        Tara Sweeney. --this ban does not apply to walrus ivory,
    and recognize the importance that this is having on the Alaska
    Native community. That's my first recommendation.
        And before--Margaret, thank you for letting me jump in. The
    second is, we need to take a hard look at the Marine Mammal
    Protection Act and the restrictions that Act has on the
    transportation or importation of marine mammals for Alaska
    Natives that are going across the Alaska--the Canadian/U.S.
    border. So many times, we have had things confiscated, and
    there has got to be a better way than applying for a permit 60
    days out.
        Senator Sullivan. Right.
        Tara Sweeney. If you're on the Alaska side and you're going
    over to Canada for an Inuit Circumpolar Conference, in Inuvik,
    you have no idea whether or not you are going to receive a gift
    like a seal skin binder or a seal skin purse. And you run the
    risk of either becoming a criminal when you bring it back into
    the country or having it confiscated, because you didn't apply
    for a permit 60 days out.
        Senator Sullivan. Yes.
        Tara Sweeney. The process inside the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
    Service with respect to Alaska Natives and the possession of
    items and the Marine Mammal Protection inside--contained in the
    Marine Mammal Protection Act, severely impact Alaska Natives.
    And I welcome the opportunity to work on that issue with you.
        Senator Sullivan. Great, thank you. And, Ms.
        Williams, did you have a----
        Margaret Williams. Sure. Yes, I have a recom----
        Senator Sullivan.--what the feds can do more?
        Margaret Williams. I have a recommendation. Well, I think
    in terms of communicating to other agencies, just an additional
    measure might be communicating through the Arctic Executive
    Steering Committee, because there are representatives, senior
    representatives from all of the agencies, NOAA, BLM, BIA, DOE.
    And you actually had the executive director of that Executive
    Steering Committee today here this morning, Mark Brzezinski. So
    if he's still around, I wouldn't be surprised if he'd be
    willing to help.
        And I think there's another opportunity with a new regional
    director from Fish and Wildlife Service who is returning from
    Alaska after spending many years living here----
        Senator Sullivan. Yes.
        Margaret Williams. --and I think would be--I just think it
    would be good to speak with him. And just one point I did want
    to raise. WWF works with TRAFFIC, and, actually, TRAFFIC
    published a report a couple of years ago on the trade of walrus
    and concluded that the international trade is not a threat to
    walrus. And so it's not even a conserva--we do not see trade of
    walrus ivory as a conservation issue, so I just wanted to
    clarify that that's----
        Senator Sullivan. And so just to clarify, would you--would
    WWF help with getting the word out----
        Margaret Williams. Yes.
        Senator Sullivan.--to your members----
        Margaret Williams. We'd be glad----
        Senator Sullivan.--on this issue, because you have a
    powerful network?
        Margaret Williams. We'd be glad to clarify. Yes, we would
    be glad to clarify the meaning of this ban and the importance
    of this----
        Tara Sweeney. Good, that would be great.
        Senator Sullivan. Well, let me ask a final question.
    Everybody has been very patient. We've--we're about out of time
    here. I just want Ms. Silook and Ms. Sweeney, just the impacts
    that are happening already.
        Are you seeing any lessening of demand of your artwork,
    which I know is world renowned? Are you seeing a lessening of
    that in--are you seeing kind of in the cash economy and some
    the economic benefits--I mean, some of the numbers that were
    mentioned by Dr. Worl and others about, that's a lot of money,
    30 to 50 thousand dollars annually, 32 million. Are you seeing,
    already, a negative impact, either on demand for your products
    or more broadly, kind of village economies that are being
    negatively impacted already?
        Tara Sweeney. Yes, I'm happy to. When you look at products
    that can range from $80 to 8,000 or 10,000 dollars of those
    contributions to a family economy is extremely important.
        Senator Sullivan. Enormous.
        Tara Sweeney. In rural Alaska, where we all know it's
    extremely high, there's an extremely high cost of living, $80
    or $8,000 is enormous.
        Senator Sullivan. Yes.
        Tara Sweeney. And when you have a negative connotation of
    ivory----
        Senator Sullivan. Yes.
        Tara Sweeney. --and walrus and Alaska ivory is being lumped
    in with elephant ivory, it has an impact on the demand for the
    product. Whether or not tourists, when they come to your
    community, will engage in trade----
        Senator Sullivan. Yes.
        Tara Sweeney.--or a commercial activity with you because of
    this, and that's extremely, extremely concerning to
    anorganization like ASRC. And so, at any point in time, that we
    can advocate on behalf of the rights of, not only our
    shareholders,but all Alaska Natives engaged in this art, we're
    going to be there at the forefront.
        And one thing I have to say is, Susie, she has made some of
    the most amazing and beautiful pieces of art.
        Senator Sullivan. I know.
        Tara Sweeney. And we have a collection at ASRC that is in
    our permanent collection, so for organizations who usually
    request contributions for ivory carvings for their efforts, the
    edict inside our organization is, none of the Susie pieces of
    ivory will ever be donated; they're part of our permanent
    collection on display.
        Susie Silook. Yes.
        Senator Sullivan. Have you seen--and, look. One of the
    things I'm getting out of this is--I'm very worried about, if
    there is an ulterior motive to just ban ivory. And we have to
    really fight back against that; all of us. I think all of us.
        Susie Silook. So I----
        Senator Sullivan. Including WWF, but everybody. But are you
    seeing a lessening of demand for your art already?
        Susie Silook. I haven't done much art. I've been working on
    this issue for the last--almost--since March of this year. But
    one gallery that I deal with in Seattle, they've stopped
    dealing with ivory and whale bone and any other Alaskan
    materials, because of these bans.
        Senator Sullivan. Geez.
        Susie Silook. So that's them----
        Senator Sullivan. And this is not even--there is no ban in
    Washington State yet.
        Susie Silook. No. But I've also done some outreach through
    our advocacy to shops in Alaska, and--OK, so there's one in
    Nome and, you know, he helps out the Bering Straits Region.
    That's the biggest area for ivory artwork, Bering Straits
    Region. And every year, he would go to the Marin show in
    California, and that's where he would get most of his revenue
    to continue his business.
        And it's an old business. But the last 4 years, he's seen
    sales steadily drop off because of the threat of the bans and
    then the actual ban. So this year, he didn't even bother going,
    because he--nobody is buying ivory, he said. His brother said,
    everybody is freaking out; nobody is buying ivory. You know,
    they don't care what you tell them. It's how it is.
        So since then, he's gotten calls from villagers, you know,
    he told me, from in that region, and he's had to tell them, no,
    I can't buy your work because I didn't make any money in
    California at the Marin show. So there's him.
        And then there's a shop, Two Spirits. Is it Two Spirits in
    Anchorage? You know----
        Unidentified Audience Members. Yes, yes.
        Susie Silook. Yes, at Two Spirits, she represents like 200
    artists. And this is Native-owned shop. And so I spoke with her
    and she makes most of her money at WEIO, World Eskimo Indian
    Olympics; yes, WEIO. And this year, 50 percent of her market--
    it was down 50 percent in her market, and that's where she
    makes most of her money.
        But there's other--you--I've talked to a lot of different
    shop owners, and some of them say, the younger generation, when
    they hear it's ivory, they don't recognize that it's walrus
    ivory; they just turn their back, because they've been
    influenced by----
        Margaret Williams. Don't blame me.
        (General Laughter)
        Susie Silook. I don't want to (indiscernible laughter)--by
    wildlife organizations that make no distinction in----
        Senator Sullivan. Yes.
        Susie Silook. --in their emotive e-mails, you know. So
    there's them. And, yes, sales are down.
        Senator Sullivan. OK. Well, listen, I want to thank
    everybody. I want to thank everybody who attended today. This
    is a very important issue and the--our witnesses, thank you.
    Your guy--your testimony was very illuminating.
        And what we're going to do, we will work with all of you--
    all of you on exactly what we're talking about. We can't let
    this get to the point where the ulterior motive of some--and
    I'm sure it's out there--banning all ivory, which would
    actually hurt conservation, by the way. We can't allow that
    happen.
        So we will continue to work on this. I have a lot of ideas.
    We want to work with you, but thank you, again.
        And, again, this hearing will be open for the record for
    two more weeks, and Pierce can, again, hand out his e-mail
    address for additional testimony. I want to thank the
    witnesses. I want to thank everybody who attended on this
    important issue.
        We will be sure to followup and fight back and push back on
    something that's really threatening our economies in the Native
    Alaskan culture here in our great State.
        [Whereupon, at 3:34 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
        [Additional material submitted for the record follows.]

      [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                                     [all]