Legislature(1995 - 1996)
03/17/1995 01:22 PM House JUD
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HJR 33 - AMENDMENTS TO ANILCA Number 700 CHAIRMAN PORTER instructed the committee to stand at ease for a moment while someone was sent to find Representative Masek. He acknowledged the presence of Representative Nicholia, in Fairbanks on the teleconference, and Representatives MacLean, Moses and Ivan. He mentioned once again that after the testimony, HJR 33 would be held over until Wednesday. The testimony would not be opened up again for the general public, but anyone who is now ready and willing to testify that we do not get to today, will have the opportunity to testify on Wednesday, as well as someone from the Governor's Office. REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN announced that he had to go to another meeting, but did want to express that he has grave concerns over this resolution. Number 775 REPRESENTATIVE BEVERLY MASEK introduced HJR 33. Sponsor statement: "I have introduced HJR 33 to preserve the equal protection, equal access, and common use clauses of our State Constitution. "In 1992 the State Supreme Court threw out those portions of the state subsistence law which violated these sections of our constitution. "That action by the court triggered a blackmail clause in ANILCA which mandates federal fish and game management if the state does not adhere to the conditions found in title VIII of ANILCA which deals with subsistence. "Now we must change our state constitution and meet federal standards or lose permanently our fish and game management authority throughout Alaska. "What the State Supreme Court found offensive in the State law (which they threw out) is even more offensive in Title VIII of ANILCA. For instance, the State law was based in part on need and was only triggered in times of resource shortages. The Federal law on the other hand, is not need based and can be activated at anytime. "Even more disturbing have been the courts' implementation of the federal law. In the Lime Village Case the courts essentially found that seasons, bag limits, methods and means do not apply to subsistence hunting. "In a more recent decision the courts found that it was permissible for subsistence users to take fish (in this case herring roe) and sell it for cash. "In effect the courts have established a new class of limited entry based solely on where a person lives. This should be a warning signal to every commercial fisherman in the state. Under ANILCA a person may move to Wrangell from Seattle, declare a subsistence priority immediately, harvest fish, and legally sell or trade them to a broker in Seattle under the guise of trade and barter. "Finally it should be noted that in 1982 the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that Eskimos in Northwest Alaska could not use subsistence to halt oil development on sea ice located three miles from shore. The most important part of that decision may have been a finding by the court that all aboriginal titles and claims of title had been extinguished under the terms and conditions of the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act. This was based on a payment of 1 billion dollars and 44 million acres of land. "Yet today we find provisions of ANILCA which, in all likelihood are based on an unconstitutional premise, stripping us of our authority to manage our fish and game. Perhaps if our governor were willing to challenge ANILCA in the federal courts we would have a third option for resolving this dilemma. Unfortunately, his legal counsel, the Attorney General, recently told House and Senate members on record that while amending or repealing ANILCA was the only true legal solution for the State, it was politically unacceptable to the Governor. It seems difficult to believe that this Administration finds equal rights and common use unworthy principles to defend. "It is now up to us as Representatives of the people to take the lead on behalf of all Alaskans in defense of their most basic rights. "This Resolution is an ardent request to Congress to amend ANILCA, to respect our state constitution, to relinquish their management of fish and game, and to honor the most critical elements of our Statehood Compact. "I urge your support for this important Resolution. Thank you." REPRESENTATIVE MASEK said they must either change the Constitution or be punished by the Department of Interior, the federal control of state fish and game management. No other state has been subjected to such a federal blackmail clause. No other state has been faced with eliminating their equal protection, equal access, a common clause of their constitution because a provision in federal law conflicts with it. This resolution seeks relief from a Congress committed to restoring states' rights. It must be made clear that this resolution does not seek to throw out the concept of subsistence, nor does it do any damage to it. In McDowell, Justice Moore stated that subsistence can be administered under our state Constitution. As soon as ANILCA conforms to our constitution, and we get back management of fish and game, we will be free once again to address special needs of Alaskans who depend heavily upon the resources of our state. Until then, we are held at an impasse. HJR 33 is not just a message to Washington, it is a request as old as the Continental Congress, as basic as the Gettysburg Address, and as plain as the voice of Patrick Henry. She asked her staff liaison, Dave Stancliff to assist her in answering any questions on the history of the issue. Mr. Stancliff has been involved with this issue since 1978, and has tracked it through 13 years of state legislative action. Her office has not received a single personal message of opposition to HJR 33. To the contrary, it has received a multitude of positive letters from many areas of our state. She read a couple of the letters to the committee. The following message was sent from Ward Cove: "Thank you for the courage to take a stand and to make the statement about violence leading to violence and discrimination leading to discrimination. I am a Native Alaskan who has always felt one of Alaska's greatest assets was taking people individually on their own merit. We need to be one people and continue to work for our collective rights as Alaskans." Another letter from Northway read: "Hi. I read your opinion on subsistence. I could not agree more. You are exactly right. This is a blunted discrimination. I am white. I qualify for subsistence..." TAPE 95-32, SIDE A Number 000 REPRESENTATIVE MASEK continued reading the letter: "...but I can at least give you moral support." REPRESENTATIVE MASEK read one more letter from Barrow: "Why should the 1959 Alaska Statehood Compact Act be purposely thwarted behind the cloaks of subsistence or ANILCA when we can win on all fronts. Let's go to the polls, and let's keep our full court press on the federal manipulators. To Governor Knowles, I say, `Uphold our original 49th Statehood Compact, as it was drafted and as it was understood. The Tenth Amendment is here for a reason, so do not sell us out to the pressures you are faced with.'" REPRESENTATIVE MASEK then read a letter of support from Ketchikan: "I wish to applaud your position on equal hunting and fishing rights for all Alaskans. While we are not from the same region, you have my wholehearted support for such a resolution. It is admirable to see a lawmaker stand up and finally declare that we are all Alaskans, as well as Americans, and should conduct ourselves as such. As an Alaska Native, I have watched as this discrimination has separated those whose roots are in the state. It is unhealthy, unproductive, and as you say, breeds further discrimination and segregation. While your position puts you at odds with several lawmakers, and of course, the Administration, I encourage you to stand firm. Others will follow your lead. Again, congratulations for standing up for your principles." Number 075 REPRESENTATIVE EILEEN MACLEAN, spoke, representing District 37, North Slope, and the Northwest, also representing Alaska Natives throughout the whole state. It is very unfortunate that we have this bill before us, HJR 33. The sponsor is wrong to say that the Nineteenth Alaska State Legislature acknowledges and wholeheartedly supports HJR 33. This Resolution is sending a very wrong message to Congress; that three individuals firmly believe the Resolution is speaking for the whole legislature is wrong. She noted for the record that the sponsor is from an urban area, and once again it pits rural against urban. Representative Masek is saying we need to bring the state of Alaska as a whole, individually, connected, in unity, but she is not doing that, not through this legislation. Alaska Natives do not like HJR 33 because it divides the state as a whole. If this is what the sponsor intends to do, she is doing a good job at it. The sponsor has not been in rural Alaska for a number of years, and Representative MacLean believes that Representative Masek has lost touch with her roots, whether Alaska Native or not. REPRESENTATIVE MACLEAN defined "Alaska Native" and "native Alaskan." An Alaska Native is an aboriginal from the state of Alaska, born with Native blood. A native Alaskan is born, not of Native origin, but born and raised in Alaska. Subsistence, to us, is a way of life. Rural people rely on subsistence to make a living. If you go to the villages, you will notice that we do not have a lot of stores, but they rely on subsistence to make their living. It is sad to say that HJR 33 is pitting one Native against another Native. The Resolution is arbitrarily dividing the state into rural versus urban. The Bush Caucus opposes HJR 33, and the Bush Caucus is made up of primarily rural people. We don't believe in state management of subsistence. The federal government has taken better care of us with the issue on subsistence. We have been in touch with Alaska Federation of Natives (AFN), and they represent 13 regional corporations throughout the whole state of Alaska. They also represent 220 villages. They oppose this bill for the following reasons. The federal preference is the only legal source protecting the economic and cultural survival of subsistence. Dependent rural communities through state law have no effective protection at all. Title VIII of ANILCA is the law and must be implemented by the United States' courts and agencies whether the state complies with it or not. The rural preference is a policy compact agreed upon by the federal and state governments in 1980, but the state has refused to uphold its end of the agreement since McDowell in 1989. Federal preference is a humane, intelligent policy that allows rural villages to survive by their only standing economic base, as contrasted with dependency on government and welfare. Here we are trying to do away with welfare. What is this resolution going to do? It is going to force more people on welfare in rural Alaska once you do away with subsistence. Without legal protection, rural villages will gradually deteriorate and disappear, with the social and economic costs of their collapse falling on future Alaskan governors, legislators, and taxpayers. Senator Stevens has told the legislature that the Congressional delegation will not use the Congress and the federal law to resolve a dispute affecting only Alaskans. The Alaska Legislature, refusing to trust its own voters with a constitutional amendment, has created this mess, which can be resolved only by Alaskans, by the vote of the people. She strongly opposed this legislation. REPRESENTATIVE TOOHEY asked Representative MacLean if she believed the government should be out of the purview of the Native communities. REPRESENTATIVE MACLEAN answered that she believes the state government has not managed our fish and game resources properly for rural people or Alaska Native people. We have had this battle for years. She believes they had better protection under the federal government than under the state. REPRESENTATIVE TOOHEY asked if subsistence came back just for the rural areas, would it also be okay, then, if we withdrew all state aid? If you have subsistence to enhance your life, and I understand that, then would you also agree to give up your welfare checks, and these benefits that are part of the same government? REPRESENTATIVE MACLEAN answered that is exactly what they have tried to do, is get the state out of rural areas, especially in the subsistence division, because they have not protected our interests. And, yes, of course we will see an after effect, like a domino effect. If you take away subsistence, then it creates more welfare for the state. We would have to start issuing checks for Aid to Families With Dependent Children (AFDC), and Public Assistance. It would create a domino effect. REPRESENTATIVE TOOHEY asked Representative MacLean if she believed it would be in the best interest of the Native communities to do away with the welfare system as long as they got subsistence? REPRESENTATIVE MACLEAN said, that yes, of course, the majority of Alaska Natives believe in that. REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE said a concern he hears about is how subsistence would impact commercial fishing. REPRESENTATIVE MACLEAN said that no, it would not. There is only 4 percent of subsistence harvesters throughout the whole state of Alaska. United Fishermen of Alaska support a constitutional amendment for subsistence to be put to the vote of the people. REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE asked if this were to pass, if she would not be concerned about an out migration from the cities to the rural areas. REPRESENTATIVE MACLEAN said no, it would not happen. You rely on subsistence primarily for harvesting, and the people who choose to live in rural areas, for them it their home. Why not move to a rural area to be a subsistence user? REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE said that is what he is saying. You do not expect that there would be a lot of people doing that? REPRESENTATIVE MACLEAN said no. REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE asked about the urban Native population, if she would expect that they would move back to rural areas. They are essentially denied subsistence rights because they are urban people. REPRESENTATIVE MACLEAN said that is a freedom that they have, to live where they choose to live. One of the unique aspects of the Alaska Natives is to share within their culture and so she is here in Juneau, but has Native food in her freezer because they share with her, her Native food. She prefers caribou over beef any day. REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE said he just gave his brother a wild goose the other day, a Canadian honker that he had killed, so he understands sharing. Number 300 REPRESENTATIVE IVAN IVAN, represents District 39, including Kuskokwim and Dillingham areas. He respects the sponsor's beliefs, and would like to make a few remarks. He was sure all of the committee members have been hearing about this issue for quite some time, and all the arguments and debates surrounding it. He did want to make comments about what subsistence means to him, and to the constituents that he represents. It has been defined as hunting, fishing and gathering activities which traditionally constituted the economic base of life for a group of people called Alaska Native people. They continue to do that today. It is a little more than that. We have had our own history, culture, and philosophy related to it, and we are taught to respect the fish and game in order to protect it as much as we can. That is also true today, and we are trying to pass on that philosophy in history to the younger generations and our children, so that they may continue to provide that. Our position has always been to let the state of Alaska recognize that this way of life exists. It is not going to go away. People will continue to hunt and fish and some of his constituents have been so strong, and feel no matter how thick the laws become in the state, they will continue to hunt and fish. That is the strong comment I have heard throughout my district. When I campaigned prior to coming here, that was one overwhelming issue. They kept asking me to represent their interests as far as their subsistence way of life is concerned. We are minorities, as we all know. You could look at the makeup of the legislature, and there are a few of us who would really like to see this subsistence way of life be recognized by the state of Alaska. It has been recognized for quite some time, but it has been struck as unconstitutional in the past. Our folks have always lived their way in their land, our land, and it is being challenged today by different interests and competition as more people come to the state of Alaska. We are all looking at the same resource. The people who were here before grew up with the idea that it was never against the law to hunt and fish. It was a person's pride to take care of one's extended family to make sure everybody had food on the table. It was very respected, and young people were encouraged to do so. That is part of growing up in our culture. As it has been in the past, the process is still going, but of course, we do have snow machines, rifles, and modern equipment. We have our own controls in communities. We have elders who tell the children to hunt only for what they need, to not hurt the resources, or we will go hungry in the future, if we do not take care of that now. We use as many parts of the animal as we can. When we kill a moose, we use the hide, the antlers, as much as we can. It is a way of life, and we do not have the infrastructure as you would see it in many communities in the state of Alaska. REPRESENTATIVE IVAN stated that the state of Alaska is a young institution that has just recently come into being. That is why the Native people trust the federal government more, because the United States federal government had a relationship with them, and recognized and honored their way of life in the past. As far as Title VIII is concerned, the federal government looks at it as a protective measure. This Resolution speaks against it. The feeling of his constituents is that it is there for our protection, and to preserve our way of life. If you look back at the history of the United States government in the Lower 48, the tribes have been recognized as tribes, and the forefathers have accordingly dealt with those groups of Native Americans. That is the type of relationship that these villages would like to see. As far as the state of Alaska, it is a newer institution, and it does not, as far as he and his constituents are concerned, recognize that way of life. REPRESENTATIVE IVAN explained that as far as the question of commercial fishing, he remembers getting out of school in the early 1960s. Commercial fishing was introduced in the lower Kuskokwim. The elders in the community looked at this new opportunity. The reservation of the majority of the folks was that we not deplete the resource for subsistence purposes, but let us have commercial fisheries, yet protect the resources from depleting. The elders wanted to see the continuity of going after the salmon resources for annual food supply. He asked the committee to seriously consider not passing this Resolution. Hopefully, in the future, the state of Alaska will recognize that this way of life needs to be continued on. At one time, my community, Akiak, was a reservation, under the federal law, but the folks opted out of it. During that time when non-Natives were married into the community to families, they were automatically treated as everyone. People in that area continue to hunt and fish. Number 465 REPRESENTATIVE TOOHEY told Representative Ivan that she would be so happy if he were going to live forever. You are not going to live forever. The elders are going to die out. There is going to be a new wave of young people coming up. We hope and pray that they have the same care and love for their traditions that you have. History has shown that does not happen, that there is a new age coming up. She fears, and feels that most people fear for the resource. More so for the resource than for your culture, because if there is no care of the land and the resource, there will be no resource. She thinks that is a major fear. Also, the herring roe situation is very prevalent. What is going to happen in a case like that? REPRESENTATIVE IVAN answered that as far as herring roe is concerned, that is another resource that our folks in the coastal communities use, and barter with dried fish for. He enjoys that, and likes it very much, but if they continue to try and get that, they hope to continue that pursuit. That is the bottom line of his testimony. His people are resting uneasy and feel threatened, and he speaks against this resolution. REPRESENTATIVE TOOHEY said bartering is not a problem, but the problem is with bartering cash for the resource. REPRESENTATIVE IVAN respected her position. Number 505 REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE said he appreciated Representative Ivan's heartfelt comments, and understands that some of his constituents might feel threatened, and it is certainly not his intention to add to their discomfort. He does not share Representative Ivan's opinion of our federal government. He thinks the way our federal government treated, in historic times, American Natives was shameful. But maybe they have learned, and are better nowadays than they were in the past. REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE said, referring to the commercial fishing, at least the elders, if resources were to run short, would want commercial fishing to go away, in order to maintain subsistence. What Representative Toohey has alluded to is that people would move to the rural areas, catch $10,000 or $20,000 worth of fish and say they are doing it as subsistence because they live in a rural area now; and then sell it, in the name of subsistence, which would hurt the resource. That is a concern we share. REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE said another concern he has, is he represents a district that includes urban Natives, and of course, the federal government would disenfranchise urban Natives, unless they moved to the rural areas. The Bethel area is growing rapidly, and in 10 or 20 years, could be considered a city, and would be classified as an urban area. Would we then exclude Bethel from subsistence, if it grows big enough? REPRESENTATIVE IVAN believes in local self government. He believes when we get to that point, we can revisit that issue. But as far as he is concerned, regardless of what the population of Bethel is, if there are people who depend on the resources and do not have jobs to do so, he would certainly like them to utilize the available resources, the fish, the moose, the caribou. He understands the concerns about conservation, and it is our number one priority. We can deal with it as time goes on, or if our population grows, as we have adjusted to it for all these years throughout our life. We have adjusted to very harsh seasons, we have adjusted to game being low in number at times. Nothing has always been abundant. We are very versatile, and can adjust easily to that situation. We can do it through discussion, debate, and consensus. Due to the number of teleconference sites on line all at one time, the quality of taping for this meeting was unfortunately less than audible through many parts, particularly for Fairbanks. Number 560 REPRESENTATIVE IRENE NICHOLIA testified via teleconference from Fairbanks against the bill. She gave a list of how much several groceries cost in rural areas. She stressed the importance of subsistence as a means for survival and also the spiritual aspects involved. The Native people want to carry on their traditions that have passed from generation to generation. It is all about caring and sharing within communities. ANILCA is the only legal force protecting the economic and cultural survival of subsistence within communities. There is no protection in state law. ANILCA must be implemented by federal and state agencies because it is the law. If you go back and review the rural history of Alaska, you will find that rural preference is a policy contract, redefined by the state and our federal government in 1980. She feels that this measure would be detrimental to rural Alaskans. CHAIRMAN PORTER was allowing unlimited testimony to the elected Representatives because, quite frankly, they are elected to represent large districts; but he did ask those remaining people wishing to testify to limit their remarks to three minutes, which is the standard for large testimony taking. He said he would try to rotate through the sites. REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE asked if Representative Nicholia would endorse the elimination of commercial fishing, if subsistence were to require that. REPRESENTATIVE NICHOLIA said that subsistence should have the priority. REPRESENTATIVE TOOHEY asked Representative Nicholia the same question she had asked Representative MacLean. Do you also believe that if subsistence is going to be your standard way of life, that you would do away with the welfare system in the rural villages? REPRESENTATIVE NICHOLIA said that time will tell if those programs would continue to be needed, as there are no jobs in rural Alaska. Number 700 PATRICK WRIGHT testified via teleconference from Anchorage. He is a long time Alaska resident in Anchorage. He stated that it had just snowed about two feet, and several people who wanted to testify were unable to come out during the snowstorm. Alaskans are rugged and are able to take care of themselves. That is exactly the concept he wanted to bring into this HJR 33, regardless of where we live. Specifically, to the Judiciary Committee, he wanted to make some comments from the Alaska State Constitution. In Article I, the inherent right talks about this constitution being dedicated to the principles. All persons have the natural right to seek the pursuit of happiness, the enjoyment of the reward of their own industry, and that all persons are equal, and entitled to equal rights opportunities and protection under the law. That is a pretty good guiding concept to direct our lives. He commended the legislators who introduced this bill, because this is good Alaska legislation to get rid of bad federal legislation, which has been suppressive and divisive of Alaskans. Since statehood, Alaska was supposed to come into the Union on equal footing with all the other states. In fact, control of fish and game was a major impetus for statehood. It is very commendable that Alaskans were able to do away with the fish traps, and rid a privileged user group of our resources. Our fisheries have certainly been enhanced since that occurred. ANILCA addresses only one state, and that leaves Alaska not being considered the same as other states. It sets up duplication of state efforts, but it is put in federal agencies that are really just empire buildings. Alaska has an excellent process for public involvement in our fish and game, through the Board of Game, the Board of Fisheries, and the local advisory committee. We have the mechanism to do this, and we also have an obligation to do it. MR. WRIGHT explained that Title VIII of ANILCA is really a statistical time bomb. In times of shortage, even though these resources may be renewable, they are not infinite, they are limited, and Title VIII is not working because in the future we will have increasing demands on our resources. The Tenth Amendment of the United States Constitution is something he would like the legislature to involve itself with. He concluded by saying he supports HJR 33 as a means of taking control of our own destiny, for our present residents, and for equity for future generations of Alaska. Number 770 WILLIE KASAYULIE, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer for the Akiachak Native Community in Bethel, one of 227 federally recognized tribes, testified via teleconference. He added that the Alaska tribes comprise over 40 percent of the federally recognized tribes across the nation. He drove down from the Akiachak on the Kuskokwim River to testify against HJR 33 because of the potential impact on rural residents. In light of the national and state government activities to reduce public assistance, especially to rural residents, amending Title VIII will have far reaching impacts where economic development is nonexistent. A constitutional amendment would be a short term solution to a long term problem, unless the people in rural areas are allowed to participate in developing regulations to our subsistence users. When we talk about having equal access, it would be incumbent upon the Alaska Legislature to realize that those of us who are unincorporated communities are being discriminated against by the state because of our desire to run our communities under tribal authority, by not giving us equal revenue sharing funding as is given to the state's municipalities. Number 800 ANDY GOLIA, Bristol Bay Native Association in Dillingham, testified via teleconference. He stated they are a nonprofit corporation who serve 29 Tribal Councils. The Native Association opposes HJR 33. They feel the Bristol Bay region will suffer if this measure is passed. Number 830 ORVIL HUNTINGTON, Huslia Tribal Member, testified via teleconference from Fairbanks, against HJR 33. He expressed concerns about giving up subsistence rights, and the need to protect the limited fish and wildlife resources. He felt this would be discrimination. TAPE 95-32, SIDE B Number 000 MARK JACOBS, JR. testified against HJR 33. First of all, Title VIII is a Native and non-Native preference in the federal ANILCA provisions. The sponsors of HJR 33 have told us that the Statehood Act gives the state jurisdiction over fish and game resources. But in the Statehood Act, regarding admission to the Union, Alaska, like every other state, is required to have in its Constitution a disclaimer, mandated by Article IV of the Alaska Statehood Act. The Alaska Constitution, Article 12, Section 12, has this disclaimer. The Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act did not negate or repeal this section, because Article 12, Section 12 clearly uses the words "forever disclaim" as a method of amending the State Constitution; and in amending the Constitution, the words mean forever. Any changes to the State Constitution and the sections have not been done legally. Any other action would be illegal in removing that provision. If you can move it and amend the State Constitution, in his opinion it would be a two faced, fork tongued policy, because he takes the language at face value. Forever means forever. If the legislature is successful in taking away rural preference, our white brothers will also be affected, the ones who choose to live the Alaska lifestyle. The 19th Congress must protect the Alaska Native rights. Subsistence take is a very small percentage, economically, to user groups. Statistics show that it has been 1 percent subsistence, 4 percent by sportsmen, and 95 percent by commercial fishermen. These are state of Alaska statistics. As a Native of Alaska, we have and possess tribal sovereign distinction because our legal relationship is a nation to nation, government to government relationship. He opposes any effort to amend the Alaska National Interest Conservation Act. He also informed the committee he is almost totally deaf. Number 160 LORETTA BULLARD, President, Kawerak, Incorporated, a regional nonprofit organization providing services to the various state regions, testified via teleconference. She opposed HJR 33. She thinks if the state passes this legislation, it will heighten the need for federal protection of the rural Alaskans' ability to subsistence hunt and fish during times of shortage. It says loud and clear that the leadership of this state will not protect those who most depend on harvesting resources. Congress did not arbitrarily divide Alaskans into groups. They made a conscious decision to protect those individuals who most depend upon those resources in times of shortage. This would hurt the families in the bush. This legislature needs to place a constitutional amendment on the ballot which will provide for rural preference during times of shortage soon. The federal government has been more responsive to rural needs than the state has. Number 200 BOB CHARLES, Vice President of Operations, for the Association of Village Council Presidents in the Yukon-Kuskokwim/Delta Region, representing 56 villages on the Delta, testified via teleconference from Bethel. He is against HJR 33. Rural Alaskans, and particularly indigenous people of Alaska will never be treated as equals if this proposed resolution to amend ANILCA passes. People throughout rural Alaska bear the brunt of the decisions made by state regulators and managers of fish and game, on the basis of what determines equal access. The only access they are interested in is the access for wealthy and nonsubsistence users. State law does not protect the resources of the people who depend upon them. Number 300 TERESA CLARK, Galena resident, testified via teleconference from Fairbanks. She opposed HJR 33. She believes in equal access to fish and wildlife resources for subsistence use. The system we have now does not provide equal access to the indigenous residents of Alaska. Number 360 RUTH WILLARD, First Vice President, Tlingit and Haida Central Council, and a Board member of the Alaska Federation of Natives, testified via teleconference in opposition to HJR 33. The federal preference protects the economic and cultural survival of the subsistence dependent rural communities. She has lived in Anchorage for over 30 years, but still considers Angoon home, which is a little village on Admiralty Island, and still looked to her people for subsistence. She strongly agreed with one of their leaders in a past AFN convention who said that Title VIII of ANILCA is the last thread left to hang onto. It should not be amended or repealed. She believes the legislature should let the people vote on a constitutional amendment to conform with Title VIII. The sponsor of this resolution, in her February 29, 1995, memo to all Alaska legislators asks for support because the law is breaking the spirit of many Alaskans. She asks the legislature to defeat this resolution for the same reason. Number 390 DALE BONDURANT, 40 year resident of Alaska, and fish and game user, testified via teleconference. He considered HJR 33 an important piece of legislation. He welcomed it, as a breath of fresh air, and respected Representative Masek's acceptance of responsibility to cut through the rhetoric and pursue equality for all Alaskans. Any government authority that suggests and pressures the system of this state to repeal the Alaska Constitution's equal protection provision, speaks blatant blasphemy. ANILCA has federally mandated exclusive rights and special privileges for certain groups. The only way to cure the problem is to extinguish the mandates of unconstitutional quality. Repeal Title VIII of ANILCA. Alaska is the only state with the only federal law that specifically excludes all residents of specifically named cities from the equal right of access to use our fish and game on our own dinner tables. Do not surrender the constitutional protection and rights of everybody. Instead, destroy the inequality of Title VIII, ANILCA. Reunite Alaskans for equal access. Number 450 EILEEN NORBERGE, Deputy Director, Kawerak, Incorporated, testified via teleconference. She totally opposed HJR 33. She felt it to be misleading and inaccurate. People do not understand that ANILCA provides for resource allocations only in times of resource shortage. It provides protection for the people who rely upon local fishing resources to feed their families. The local population should have priority in the opportunity to continue feeding their families, over sport fishermen from Anchorage or Seattle. If any of you on this committee oppose that, she felt people were getting away from the issue. The state has reneged on its commitment to uphold the Constitution in regards to fish and game resources. The rural preference, under ANILCA, provides us with some form of protection, which we need. Through extended families, we pool our resources together. Subsistence is an economic system. The state of Alaska needs to solve its own problems, and if it is unable to do so, then we turn to the federal government. Number 550 LORETTA LOLNITZ, an Athabascan Indian, testified via teleconference. She said this Resolution will do nothing to help her, because of the way she was raised to live and the way she chooses to live. As it is now, our traditional heritage is constantly being abused by various legislative parties. Our traditional hunting and fishing needs are essential to our way of life. We should never compare our subsistence way of life with other states, because Alaska's conditions are unique, compared to other states. She opposed the Resolution. REPRESENTATIVE TOOHEY asked if Ms. Lolnitz, her husband, or children were receiving any benefits from the state. MS. LOLNITZ answered no. Number 600 HAROLD MARTIN, President, Southeast Native Subsistence Commission, testified against the Resolution. The Commission is made up of 18 community representatives elected locally by tribal members, and four regional representatives appointed by the Central Council, Tlingit and Haida Tribes of Alaska, Sealaska Corporation, Alaska Native Brotherhood, and Alaska Native Sisterhood. The Commission represents over 20,000 tribal members. He spoke against HJR 33 for a number of reasons. Title VIII of ANILCA and the federal preference protects the unique subsistence and cultural lifestyle of rural Native communities. State law has no effective protection now. Title VIII of ANILCA is a law that must be implemented by the federal courts and agencies whether the state complies with it or not. This issue must be resolved within Alaska by Alaskans. Why did the state of Alaska relinquish management control of 60 percent of Alaska lands on account of 8 percent of its people that harvest less than 4 percent of the wild renewable resources on an annual basis? REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE understands the problem in Title VIII to be that even if we amended the Constitution and put it to a vote, there is no guarantee it would pass. But if we amended the Constitution, we would still be under federal oversight, so we would not really be accomplishing much by amending the Constitution. He asked Mr. Martin to address the question of the herring roe fishery. He understands that $70,000 worth of herring roe was sold in the name of barter. What impact would that have on commercial fishing if people were able to catch fish in the name of subsistence and sell them? MR. MARTIN was not familiar with the case Representative Bunde was talking about. There has always been a barter system. Commercial fisheries take the majority of the herring roe that is available in the Sitka area, and other areas. Not a whole lot of people take herring roe. Some people do not eat it, and some do. Not many people sell it. There are a few people who will exploit our natural resources, and we are on the lookout for these people. We had that experience with the sea otter not too long ago, and we brought them under control. He does not feel there is a threat now. REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE explained that the question is not about herring roe, but people are concerned that if you can sell herring roe, then you can sell herring, then you can sell troll-caught fish, you can sell purse-seine fish, and call it subsistence. That is what people are concerned about, that commercial fishermen will lose their right to fish, their limited entry permits would be worthless, because people could say they are doing subsistence and sell their fish. MR. MARTIN felt at this point, the subsistence preference kicks in only when they run into a shortage of a particular species. It is not in effect all the time. He does not see a threat there. VERNON OLSON, Vice President of Bering Straits Native Corporation, testified via teleconference. A majority of the 6,710 shareholders of this corporation live a subsistence lifestyle. He personally has never received aid from the state or federal government. We, in this area, rely heavily upon subsistence. What we are really talking about here is culture and the necessity to put food on the table. If HJR 33 passed, we would have cultural genocide, because it is not only food, it is also the way of life. HJR 33 is a frivolous piece of legislation. STANLEY JONAS testified via teleconference, against HJR 33. He is from Canyon Village, located about 110 miles north of Fort Yukon. His village does not have a store or an airport, and we rely on the subsistence way of life. If we were to charter groceries in, it would cost us about $400. That is money we do not have here, because there are no jobs. He lives out in the bush, and at 67 years old, that is really his way of life. He is opposed to this Resolution. Number 745 ROBERT FIFER, testified via teleconference, representing the EGA Village Council, and the 36 tribal members. In response to Representative Masek's Resolution, it grossly misrepresents the Native people of Alaska. She has no self pride as a Native person herself. Before Ms. Masek introduces this Resolution, she should talk to her people, in order to represent them respectfully. The word "subsistence" is foreign. This is a way of life. Do not dictate my way of life. Protect it. He will not support any legislation except a constitutional amendment in our state, to comply with federal law. Number 775 ISAAC JUNEBY, Eagle resident, testified via teleconference. He strongly opposed HJR 33. He believes that rural residents should have first priority for using the resources. Number 790 HARRIET CARLO, Galena resident, testified via teleconference. She opposed HJR 33 and stated that her and her husband have four children. They buy very little commercially processed meat, and they both work full-time jobs, at low income. They do have marketable skills. She has a background working with drugs and alcohol, teenagers, and in being a child advocate. She has also worked with the women's shelter. They do not depend on income, due to personal beliefs. They share their harvests with family members and communities. They choose to live the subsistence way of life, and they do not have the money to go to the store to buy food. CARL JERNE, JR. (REPRESENTATIVE BEVERLY MASEK'S BROTHER), First Chief, Anvik Tribal Council, opposed HJR 33. The Council consists of approximately 120 people. He said the bill claims that its purpose is to allocate the fish and wildlife of Alaska for subsistence use among residents of Alaska without individual regard to the residents' use of, or need of subsistence. He felt the resolution would be placing rural against urban. It is written in black and white. Also, in regards to sport fishing, the exclusion goals have not been reached. He urged the legislature to do some research and go to the villages and see what is really happening. Neither he, nor the Council has the staff and resources to do the research, and to make proposals and such; but he took it upon himself to make sure that the committee understands that their Tribal Council opposes the Resolution. TAPE 95-33, SIDE A Number 000 JERRY SAM, Chief, Village of Aletna, testified via teleconference. The only way to get supplies in and out of Aletna is to charter, which is very expensive. We rely on food that is provided from the animals and the land. He strongly opposed HJR 33. Number 100 CESA SAM, Tribal Administrator, Huslia, testified via teleconference, against HJR 33. It is hard work to live a subsistence lifestyle, but they have been raised to work hard to put food on their tables. If she is laid off from her job, she knows she can always put food on her table through subsistence rights. Number 140 JEREMIAH RILEY, 14 year old, testified via teleconference against HJR 33, because it will have negative impacts on their resources. This will not promote an abundant supply of fish and game for all of the children of the future, due to the over harvesting that will occur. Number 165 STANLEY NED, ALLAKAKET resident, testified via teleconference. He opposed HJR 33. His fathers and grandfathers have lived off of the land, taking only what they need. Not any more. What we have now are people that do not know what living off the land means. Talking to people that don't know what living off the land means is like a fart in a blizzard. They do not know how to make the necessary sacrifices. He opposed HJR 33. Number 200 MARTHA FALK, House Researcher for Representative MacLean, addressed the statement that Representative Toohey made, in regards to our elders dying off. It is a real emotional issue for her. She is living testimony that she will pass on, yet she respects her cultural values, because it is their way of life, to keep them unified. Subsistence is a lifestyle. The issue of food on the table is not an economic issue, it is a way of religion for us. And referring to Representative Toohey's comments to say that the elders are dying off, and that there are a few bad eggs in their race, or in the several different Native races, that is true. There are bad eggs in every race. But she will proudly carry on her subsistence lifestyle. REPRESENTATIVE TOOHEY answered that if Ms. Falk took her comments as being flippant, they were not meant to be flippant. She has a great deal of respect for her and her lifestyle. Her fear is that there are children out there that are fetal alcohol syndrome, that are coming into the big cities, and are being influenced by the wrong kind of person. They are going back to the villages without your love of the land. That is what she fears. MS. FALK said what she was referring to is there will always be a remnant to carry on from generation to generation to generation, because that is their rightful inheritance from their father in heaven. MIKE LOPEZ, IRA Council Member from Petersburg, strongly opposed HJR 33. He is also a member of the Southeast Alaska Native Subsistence Commission. Title VIII of ANILCA is intended to carry out subsistence related policies and to fulfil the purposes of ANSCA in this respect, that in some sense, a settlement of Alaska Native's Aboriginal hunting and fishing claims seemingly extinguished in ANSCA. Unlike previous such settlements, ANILCA does not afford Alaska Natives off-reservation or other exclusive rights to hunt and fish because of their membership in a particular tribe. Instead, bowing to present day political reality, ANILCA established subsistence protection for most rural Alaska residents, both Native and non-Native. Nevertheless it is quite clear from the congressional finding in Title VIII that ANILCA is also a federal legislation enacted to benefit Native Americans and is intended, in significant part, to protect Alaska Natives' physical, economical, cultural, or traditional existence. CHAIRMAN PORTER recorded the names of persons to testify on Wednesday: Kenny Johns, from Glennallen, Tom Tilden from Dillingham, Jake Ollana, Art Swanson from Nome, Larry Ashenfelter from Nome, Al McKinley from Juneau, and of course somebody from the Governor's Office. He announced that the hearing would be continued to about 1:30 or 2:00 p.m. on Wednesday. REPRESENTATIVE MASEK concluded, expressed appreciation to the committee in taking on HJR 33. She thanked everybody for their opinions which are very helpful. Our country allows differences, because people died for equality in the history of our nation. She appreciated everybody's thoughts shared on this important issue.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|