Good link Guest. From the sounds of it the government goes to greater lengths to preserve ivory laying on the ground than they do for that which is still attached to a living beast. At what point would old ivory be considered a part of an archaeological site? Would there have to be evidence of knife cuts or other human sign on it? I'd think that "The People" (Inuit)would benefit somewhat from being able to use the raw materials left behind for their art without doing tons of paperwork.