Legislative Alert - Ivory Ban Bills Introduced - 7/22/2014

ATADA Legislative Alert 4,  22 July, 2014: Ivory Ban Bills Introduced

ATADA believes that the proposed FWS regulations (ban) on antique ivory will penalize law-abiding US citizens while doing nothing to protect elephants. For a detailed discussion of the issues, see the ATADA Position on the Ivory Ban.

Last week Representative Steve Daines (R-MT) and Senator Lamar Alexander (R-TN) introduced bills (H.R. 5052 and S. 2587 ) that would remove the proposed changes to the FWS proposed regulations on elephant ivory and allow time to craft a more effective legislative response.

We ask that you contact your senators and congressman immediately to register your support of these bills.

********************************************************************

Writing an e-letter to a Congressman is a lot more difficult than I initially thought.

Here is what I recommend:

1) Create a draft letter in a text editor (not Microsoft Word or your email client), be sure to request that they support the bills (H.R. 5052 and S. 2587 ),

2) Save a copy of your .txt letter file to your hard disk because you will need to come back and get it later,

3) go to the web page of each member of your congressional delegation and do what each requires to send a letter.

Here are some of the issues that you must consider:

-the text of the letter should not contain any .html or markup that is specific to any particular word processor or email client – some Congressional web pages will block any entry of .html and may block data from some particular word processors (Congressmen want to minimize the time that must be spent reading your letter and indexing it in their databases. They also want to make it difficult to submit a form letter to each of many Congressmen).

-you will need to have the text of your letter available in a separate window at the same time that your browser window is open at the Congressman’s site so that you will be able to copy and paste the letter into the data entry box. (you may need to browse to find the correct page allowing data entry into the data entry box).

– Once at a congressional delegation website, you will need to browse to find the page with a web form that allows you send a letter to your Senator or Representative. All web sites seem to be somewhat differently organized, so you will need to browse to find the correct page.

Please request that your friends and contacts do the same as the ATADA membership alone is not large enough to make a big difference in the statistics of public opinion.

Legislative Alert - Ivory Ban - 7/3/2014

ATADA Legislative Alert 3, Ivory Ban, 3 July, 2014

As a response to Presidential Directive, the Fish and Wildlife Service is revising its regulations and is considering putting place a nearly complete ban on elephant ivory. We ask that the membership write their Congressional Delegations a letter asking that they not approve the ivory ban. The text below (written by Roger Fry and Arch Thiessen) is suggested for this letter.  Follow one of the links below to the .html page of each member of your delegation, one at a time, and copy and paste this letter into the form provided on their web page. As a title for your letter (requested in one of the information boxes on the form), use “Ivory Ban Won’t Work”. You may personalize the letter before or after pasting the letter into the form as the space on their form is a text editor box.

All Members of Congress provide essentially the same form for receiving a letter, but you may have to do a bit of digging into their web site to find it.

 

*******start of suggested letter text********

Honorable Senator (Representative ) ________________

…personalize the introduction here…

The recently proposed Ivory Ban will not work. Reports from Africa indicate that one elephant is being killed every 15 minutes. An Ivory Ban will do too little, too late to have any significant impact on elephants killed by poachers. Only direct and immediate action at the source can prevent the elephant from becoming extinct.

The proposed Ban is a piece of “looks good” legislation that does not address the issue. It does, however, adversely impact law-abiding antique dealers, collectors, museums, musicians and others who possess legal older objects containing ivory.

What is needed is enforcement of existing anti-poaching laws in the country of origin and preservation of habitat. The United States needs to direct funds and effort at the problem in Africa.

The present U.S. emphasis on an Ivory Ban is diverting media attention and resources from the real problem and is providing the false impression that it will help save the elephant. It won’t. Extinction of the elephant could occur within the next 10 years if we do nothing. The ivory ban will not extend the lifetime of the elephant by a single day, while it penalizes countless thousands of Americans who have done nothing wrong.

Please do not support the ivory ban

*******end of suggested letter text********

A Summary of ATADA's Position On Recent Federal Raids

Why is ATADA concerned with the recent federal raids?

The buying and selling of Native American art is a huge part of the national economy.

The publication Indian Trader recently quoted the director of the Department of the Interior Indian Arts and Crafts Board (IACB) as stating that the contemporary market in Native American art may approach a billion dollars annually.  The director of the Albuquerque-based Indian Arts and Crafts Association stated that the market is at least 750 million dollars annually even after the recent decline. There are hundreds of art galleries and thousands of Native Americans, many still living a traditional life, who buy and sell Native American art for their livelihood.  This business is important to the national economy and is unique to the western states. Many tourists come here to buy Indian art and the money spent turns over many times in the community.

The Indian art trade has suffered serious harm as a result of unfair and inaccurate publicity. Buying and selling Indian art is legal, yet fear and uncertainty have directly impacted the economy.

There has been a spill-over effect resulting from legitimate public concerns over looting and damage to archaeological sites. Due to uncertainty of the legal status of ancient, old, and even contemporary artworks, the market as a whole has constricted.

Not only art dealers, but also contemporary Indian artisans are now seeing their arts and crafts sales decline.

Casual collectors and tourists do not distinguish between old and new or sacred and profane, and indeed these lines are often unclear to the expert. Questioning the legality of any type of Native American artifact affects the market for it.  If the press says that a kachina doll, a fetish, a dance rattle, a basket, or a pot may be subject to repatriation without pointing out that the repatriation provision affects only ceremonial items in federally funded museums, this will affect the entire market.  By destabilizing the  American Indian art market, the government is harming native arttraditions and culture as well as eliminating the livelihood of Native American artists. 

The serious collecting community, which is the backbone of the American Indian museum scene is paralyzed by the legal uncertainty.

After last year’s raids, collectors are afraid to purchase new items or to show or share their collections. Misinformation in the press has created tremendous uncertainty in the public mind – many now believe they cannot own older pieces or anything once used in a ceremonial context.

 

Grave robbers and diggers who take artifacts from federal or Indian lands should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. Stolen artifacts should be returned.

However, there should be repose for artifacts that have been traded since before ARPA and which have no history of unlawful trade, as envisioned in the statute. The laws state that artifacts that were illegally taken from federal or Indian lands are not legal to trade in. The laws state that objects from private lands and objects legally sold are legal to trade in, to pass to children, or to give to museums.

 

The problem is that the lawful or unlawful source of hundreds of thousands of items simply cannot now be known. If artifacts are held to be guilty until proven innocent, they will remain in legal limbo, without a future.

 These objects should not be “orphans” but free for trade, inheritance and donation, as envisioned under ARPA. A federal judge in New Mexico has noted that making trade in these objects of unknown origin illegal would criminalize the innocent actions of thousands of Americans who purchased Indian items before passage of ARPA and now wish to pass them on to family or to donate them to museums.

There has been a very active trade in Native American art and artifacts involving hundreds of thousands of artifacts since the 1880s, long before any law regulating collection or trade was passed. For nearly seventy years after passage of the first law in 1906, Indian goods including antiquities continued to be regularly sold by Indians to tourists on reservations, traded through curio and pawnshops and sold at auction. Many of the goods that were circulating openly in the market prior to 1979, when Congress passed ARPA, have no history of their original find-spot.

 

U.S. museums have been encouraged to treat objects as “guilty until proven innocent.” This ill-considered policy will continue to harm the public interest into the far future.

Fearful of public criticism, U.S. museums have taken steps to self-police acquisitions that go far beyond the requirements of the law. But these self-policing activities are already backfiring on museums – many cannot accession long-promised collections simply because no records were kept back in the time when no record-keeping requirement existed. To impose a requirement now for documentation on materials purchased in good faith long ago is a task beyond the ability of collectors to accomplish. To move the burden of proof on these issues from government to the individual, while at the same time moving historical goal posts, is bad practice and bad law.

Dealers and collectors are under attack. It is ATADA’s duty to respond.

 “It is potentially problematic to deal in this stuff. You don’t always know the provenance of an object. All the more reason for the public to avoid buying antiquities. I’d like the trade to dry up.” – anonymous Federal enforcement agent as quoted in August 20, 2010 issue of Pasatiempo. Similar statements have been made by professional archaeologists. Notice that such sentiments do not distinguish between the tiny fraction of illegally removed older or ceremonial items and the bulk of the market which is non-controversial and entirely legal.

 

 If ATADA does not speak up, who will?

United we stand, divided we fall!

See excerpts of stories and ATADA’s responses in the Fall 2010 issue of The ATADA News.

 

The federal raids and ATADA’s responses

Raids and ATADA’s Responses In early 2009, the FBI took its long anticipated action to enforce the Archaeological Resources Protection Act of 1979 (ARPA)and the Native American Graves Protection Act of 1990 (NAGPRA) by staging multiple simultaneous armed raids in Blanding and elsewhere in Utah and the Four Corners region. Somewhat surprisingly, these were followed with a set of raids in Santa Fe in June, 2009.

In early August, 2009, a set of negative articles about collecting Native American Art appeared simultaneously in the all the Santa Fe and Albuquerque newspapers. ATADA was unprepared. We had never seen such an onslaught of negative publicity. This was coupled with misinformation and incomplete information in the media accounts. We had no good means to combat it.

One highlight of the week was the Art in the Law talk. Because of the publicity, the session was well attended. It was not surprising how eager the audience was to hear the discussion of the law. The questions showed a general need for education on the relevant laws which we continue to address in our Art and the Law sessions. In November, 2009, the Board of Directors took the first-ever step of holding a retreat at a time not associated with a show. This retreat was held in Kansas City shortly after the opening of the new American Indian Art wing at the Nelson Atkins Museum. We had quite thorough discussions of the current issues. One session was devoted to a thorough rewrite of the Bylaws. The ATADA bylaws have been rewritten to reflect the changes in direction that have occurred in recent years. One result of the retreat was the formation of a new Legislative Education Committee. This committee met many times during the winter and spring and has met with several newspaper editorial boards as well as with Congressman Ben Lujan’s (D-NM) staff. The committee hopes that other ATADA members will use this model to take on similar meetings in their own states.

Early in the summer of 2010, Kate Fitz Gibbon wrote a 32-page booklet entitled “Native American Art and the Law: A Collector’s Guide.” This user-friendly booklet is written in language that the average collector can readily understand. Copies were distributed to all members in August. 

Also at the Santa Fe August 2010 shows, the Legislation Education committee conducted a seminar entitled “THE FEDERAL RAIDS: Myth & Fact.” This first-person account of the Four Corners raids played to a packed house and generated very good press for ATADA. Minutes of this discussion are available in the ATADA News Fall 2010 issue. The next day, there was a very lively discussion at the ATADA 2010 Annual Meeting.

Legislative Alert - Kennewick Man - 4/4/2005

ATADA Legislative Alert #2, Kennewick Man
4 April, 2005

Dear ATADA Member,

You are receiving this e-mail because of your membership in ATADA. The ATADA Board of Directors has asked me to send the following message to the membership.

ALERT: Senate to expand the definition of Native American

S.536 full text is at http://www.atada.org/S-536.pdf, see p. 15.

As early as this week (April 4-8, 2005) the US Senate will vote on S.536. In Section 108 of this bill, the Senate Indian Affairs Committee quietly and unanimously voted to amend NAGPRA’s definition of Native American. No public hearings were held on this sweeping change.

This expansive definition of Native American sets the stage to overturn the Kennewick Man decisions rendered by the Federal District Court of Oregon and the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.

More than the Kennewick Man case is at stake. In any future similar discovery, human remains might be reburied without scientific examination. This would, in effect, block the application of the scientific method to inquiry about our Nation’s pre-history.

FAX or E-mail your concerns to your state’s Senators and Senate Majority Leader Frist. Ask them to delete Section 108 from S.536. (US Mail will not reach these offices in time). Every FAX or e-mail counts.

To obtain contact information for your state’s Senators, go to the following URL:

http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm

Voice your concerns – NOW

————

Suggested language: (Personalize your own message but use this subject alert)

Subject: S.536 – DELETE Section 108

Suggestedletter – provided by W. Roger Fry (WRF@rendigs.com)

Dear Senator ____________:

I am writing to you regarding Senate Bill S.536 titled ” Native American Omnibus Act of 2005″ , introduced by Senator John McCain on March 7, 2005.

Senator __________, this Bill contains a drastic change at Section 108. No hearings were held on this and it has been treated as non controversial. Section 108 is a seemingly insignificant change to NAGPRA, however this is not the case. It represents a major change and one that should be thoroughly studied, with public comment, before a decision is made regarding it.

Adding ” or was” after the word ” is” in the definition of ” Native American” in NAGPRA, results in the nonscientific assumption that all human remains found in the United States, that date prior to 1492, are human remains of ancestors of present day Native Americans. Under those circumstances the Native Americans would be able to prohibit scientific study of the human remains and cause same to be reburied without any study whatsoever. Had this change been in the law earlier, there would have been no study of Kennewick Man. Those remains would have been reburied at the direction of the American Indians without our learning that they are over 8,000 years old and non Indian.

The scientists who opposed the immediate reburying of Kennewick Man presented an extraordinarily compelling case, under the current law, and prevailed. Accordingly, Kennewick Man, which has been determined to be a non Indian, has been studied and will be studied further and may represent a new chapter in ” the peopling of America” . The change in Section 108, by adding the words ” or was” would have given the American Indians the exclusive decision making power to immediately rebury Kennewick Man. That same power would exist as to future discoveries if the change in Section 108 is made. This would impede appropriate scientific study of the prehistory of America.

Please ask that Section 108 be removed from Senate Bill S.536 until the ramifications of it are thoroughly understood. A public comment period would provide you with the benefit of the Native American position on this and that of the scientific community. It would enable all members of the Senate to cast an informed vote on this crucial issue.

Thank you, Senator ______________, for your consideration of this most important matter.

Sincerely yours,

______________________

————

Please pass this e-mail along to any friends and/or customers that you think may be interested.

Thank you for your prompt attention to this matter.

Arch Thiessen, ATADA Webmaster

Legislative Alert - ARPA Modification - 11/9/2004

ATADA Legislative Alert 1, ARPA Modification,
9 November, 2004

Dear (ATADA Member),

You are receiving this e-mail because of your membership in ATADA.

We understand that the Senate will vote by voice (no roll call, no accountability) on an amendment to NAGPRA after it reconvenes Nov. 16. Thus time is of the essence and we ask your prompt attention to the following matter:

(This is a quote from The Friends of America’s Past web site http://www.friendsofpast.org/)

” Without mentioning NAGPRA by name, Colorado Senator Campbell introduced an amendment that significantly changes the intent and scope of NAGPRA. By referring to Public Law 101-601 rather than calling attention to the more familiar NAGPRA, the clear intent was to slip this amendment by unnoticed. No time was allowed for discussion of this amendment. Although the original framers of NAGPRA recognized that the scientific community and the general public have a significant interest in understanding our nation’s factual prehistory, these interests have been quietly set aside with two words: ‘or was’. A press report (www.Indianz.com 10/1/04) quoted a Senate staffer who said the amendment was ” non-controversial” .

” The statute’s definition of Native American was a central issue in the Kennewick Man case. In fact, the government argued before the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals that if the bones of ” Adam and Eve” were found within our borders, they would be considered Native American under NAGPRA. As a result they would have been given to claiming tribes, reburied, and the public would have no legal right to object. This new amendment effectively allows any federally recognized tribes to claim any and all ancient remains even though they can produce, as the Ninth Circuit Court stated, ” no cognizable link” to the remains. This new definition puts all ancient remains such as Spirit Cave, Wizards Beach, Gordon Creek, Horn Shelter, and Arlington Springs under NAGPRA.

” If this new wording had been part of NAGPRA in 1996 when the Kennewick remains were discovered, the skeleton would have been deemed Native American, given to the claiming tribe (Umatilla), and reburied without study. Although NAGPRA requires that a tribe produce evidence of a relationship to an identifiable prior group, the Secretary of the Interior has the authority to set aside this requirement. Former Secretary Babbitt did so at least twenty times, allowing repatriation to claiming tribes without requiring any evidence beyond their beliefs. The government and tribes have argued that under NAGPRA, Native American remains cannot be studied for research purposes. NAGPRA does include such a statement.

” Expanding NAGPRA in this way imposes a simplistic view of the past: that the only inhabitants of the continent were the ancestors of modern American Indians. Time and time again, scientists have refuted this idea. Two words ‘or was’ denies factual understanding of the complexities that surely existed in the peopling of the Americas by giving American Indians exclusive control over our nation’s prehistory. In the Kennewick Man case, the government and tribes argued unsuccessfully all the information obtained during government studies is proprietary to the tribes should not be accessible to the public. With NAGPRA’s amended language, the public would be denied access to any information discovered about the earliest people to inhabit the continent. All information about our prehistory would belong exclusively to the tribes.”

” Contact your Senators and Representatives in Washington DC and voice your concern that this reportedly ‘non-consequential’ amendment to S.2843 has passed committee review without the benefit of public review or any consideration of the far-reaching consequences.”

The ATADA Board of Directors has asked me to create a “Legislative Alert” web page. More information on this alert will shortly be posted to the new web page.

There are numerous issues of importance to collectors and dealers alike. I am looking for help to collect information to be posted on our new web page. I am inviting all of you to send me subjects for posting and I am especially looking for help in keeping up to date on these rapidly developing topics.

Thank you for your prompt attention to this matter.

Arch Thiessen, ATADA Webmaster