ARTIST Act Creates New Exemption for Alaska Native Ivory Sales, Changing Federal Marine Mammal Protections

The “Alaska’s Right to Ivory Sales and Tradition Act,” or the ARTIST Act, is looking to carve out a major exception to the 1972 Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA). Essentially, this bill creates a specific, permanent exemption allowing Alaska Natives living along the coast to take marine mammals—like walruses or certain whales—not just for subsistence (food), but also specifically to create and sell authentic handicrafts. The bill strictly defines what counts as “authentic,” requiring the craft to be made by an Alaska Native living on the coast, primarily from natural materials, and explicitly banning the use of mass-copying tools like a pantograph. This is a big deal because it legally links traditional hunting practices directly to commercial activity.

The Fine Print on Authentic Crafts and Commerce

For the coastal Alaska Native communities, this bill offers a clear pathway to economic support by protecting and promoting traditional artistry. If you’re an artisan, this legislation guarantees that your finished carvings or sewn goods—which might include marine mammal ivory, bone, or baleen—cannot be banned by any state. This provision, tucked away in Section 2, is designed to protect the market for these items from state-level interference, ensuring that commerce in these specific cultural goods can flow freely. It’s a win for cultural preservation and the local economy, giving artisans a clear legal standing for their trade.

Balancing Tradition with Conservation

Here’s where the policy tightrope walk begins. The bill maintains that the Secretary (of Commerce or Interior) can still step in if they determine that a specific marine mammal population is depleted. If that happens, the Secretary can impose temporary regulations on when, where, or how the animals can be taken. However, the bill adds an important layer of due process: before imposing new rules, the Secretary must hold a public hearing. Crucially, the evidence used to support these decisions must consider Indigenous knowledge alongside scientific data. This is a significant nod to traditional ecological knowledge, giving it legal weight in federal conservation decisions.

The Regulatory Catch-22

While requiring the inclusion of Indigenous knowledge is progressive, the bill introduces a potential hurdle for oversight. The requirement for the Secretary to show “substantial evidence” supporting a depletion regulation only kicks in if an Alaska Native organization sues over the action. This means the initial regulatory decision might face a lower evidentiary standard, creating a situation where federal wildlife agencies might have to wait for a lawsuit to fully justify necessary conservation measures. For federal wildlife enforcement agencies, this could complicate their job, potentially adding bureaucratic friction to time-sensitive conservation efforts.

Real-World Impact on the Market

For consumers and collectors, the ARTIST Act’s strict definition of “authentic Alaska Native article” is important. It means that if you are buying a piece of marine mammal ivory or bone, it must have been crafted by an Alaska Native artisan on the coast using traditional methods—no mass-produced items allowed. This is intended to protect the authenticity of the market and prevent exploitation. However, the commercial exemption for hunting specifically for handicrafts could increase pressure on marine mammal populations like walruses, whose tusks are highly valued. The bill attempts to manage this risk by prohibiting “wasteful” taking, but the increased commercial incentive is something the federal agencies will need to monitor closely to ensure the MMPA’s core goal of protection isn’t undermined by the new commerce exemption.