[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- [email protected]. ([email protected]) 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]