U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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

22–605 PDF 2017

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 

( 

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

(II) 

COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS 

ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma, Chairman 

DAVID VITTER, Louisiana 

JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming 

SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia 

MIKE CRAPO, Idaho 

JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas 

JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama 

ROGER WICKER, Mississippi 

DEB FISCHER, Nebraska 

MIKE ROUNDS, South Dakota 

DAN SULLIVAN, Alaska 

BARBARA BOXER, California 

THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware 

BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland 

BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont 

SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island 

JEFF MERKLEY, Oregon 

KIRSTEN GILLIBRAND, New York 

CORY A. BOOKER, New Jersey 

EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts 

RYAN JACKSON, Majority Staff Director 

BETTINA POIRIER, Democratic Staff Director 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON FISHERIES, WATER, AND WILDLIFE

DAN SULLIVAN, Alaska, Chairman 

JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming 

SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia 

JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas 

JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama 

ROGER WICKER, Mississippi 

DEB FISCHER, Nebraska 

MIKE ROUNDS, South Dakota 

JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma (ex officio) 

SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island 

THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware 

BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland 

BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont 

KIRSTEN GILLIBRAND, New York 

CORY A. BOOKER, New Jersey 

EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts 

BARBARA BOXER, California (ex officio) 

(III) 

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 

(1) 

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. 

2 

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. 

3 

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-rd@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 

4 

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, 

5 

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 

6 

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. 

7 

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:] 

8 


22605.001
9 


22605.002
10 


22605.003
11 


22605.004
12 


22605.005
13 


22605.006
14 


22605.007
15 


22605.008
16 


22605.009
17 


22605.010
18 

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 muchneeded 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. 

19 

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 

20 

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 

21 

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. 

22 

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 

23 

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:] 

24 


22605.011
25 


22605.012
26 


22605.013
27 


22605.014
28 


22605.015
29 


22605.016
30 

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 

31 

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 

32 

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:] 

33 


22605.017
34 


22605.018
35 


22605.019
36 


22605.020
37 


22605.021
38 


22605.022
39 


22605.023
40 


22605.024
41 


22605.025
42 


22605.026
43 


22605.027
44 


22605.028
45 

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. 

46 

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—— 

47 

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. 

48 

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 

49 

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. 

50 

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? 

51 

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 acVerDate Aug 31 2005 12:22 Jan 09, 2017 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00055 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\_EPW\DOCS\22605.TXT VERN
52 

tual 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.] 

53 


22605.029
54 


22605.030
55 


22605.031
56 


22605.032
57 


22605.033
58 


22605.034
59 


22605.035
60 


22605.036
61 


22605.037
62 


22605.038
63 


22605.039
64 


22605.040
65 


22605.041
66 


22605.042
67 


22605.043
68 


22605.044
69 


22605.045
70 

Æ 


22605.046