Legislature(1997 - 1998)
03/03/1998 01:16 PM House RES
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HB 406 - SUBSISTENCE USES OF FISH AND GAME CO-CHAIRMAN SCOTT OGAN announced the next order of business was House Bill No. 406, "An Act relating to subsistence uses of fish and game." CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN announced members from the Administration are here today to testify on HB 406. He called on Byron Mallott, a member of Governor Knowles' Subsistence Task Force, to address the committee. Number 1910 BYRON MALLOTT, Executive Director, Alaska Permanent Fund Corporation, explained for clarification he is not a member of the Administration. He is hear at the request of Co-Chairman Ogan based on a conversation they had yesterday. MR. MALLOTT stated the notion in HB 406, as well as the notion in several of the more recent subsistence draft bills, contains a process that is very important to the success of subsistence as the state moves forward to build a management system responsive to the needs - empowering people at the local and regional levels. The notion exists in a broad range of governmental and institutional activities that take place throughout Alaska, not just rural Alaska. The notion of a regional system to allow folks at the local and regional levels to have an impact on the resource management decisions that affect their lives is a step forward in fish and game administration, not just subsistence. He recognizes the importance of the tradition of management in Alaska and that it must make sense on a statewide basis. Therefore, he applauds the effort to include in that framework the notion that people at the local and regional levels can impact the decisions that affect their lives. Number 2050 REPRESENTATIVE BARNES commented under the state constitution, as it exists today, only the legislature has the power to regulate the taking of fish and game. The legislature delegates some of that power to the Boards of Fisheries and Game and confirms their membership. She asked Mr. Mallott whether he feels that the legislature has any way to delegate more than advisory authority to the regional boards and the recommendations that they would make to the boards. Number 2091 MR. MALLOTT replied, generally, in order to delegate decision making beyond the level of a state board would require legislative confirmation to empower it. If people are going to respect decisions affecting things that are important to them, they want and expect their input to be considered. There is no question that society is evolving today to the degree that decisions can be made at a level closest to the citizenry affected. The top-down kinds of management systems are changing fast. And this is very, very important to rural Alaska and the decisions that affect the people in rural Alaska. Number 2192 REPRESENTATIVE BARNES stated there are local advisory "boards" around the state and many of them are very, very active. She asked Mr. Mallott whether he feels that the local advisory "boards" do not have enough input today or whether their proposals to the state boards are not being heard. Number 2210 MR. MALLOTT replied there is a sense that they are more ad hoc. The local advisory "boards" have the ability to be captured or influenced by a particular interest or range of issues. It would probably be more appropriate to have a more broad-based view of issues before such a committee. The local advisory system has worked, and it is raising more and more questions in the minds of local folks as to why they can only give advise and not make decisions. There is an evolution taking place that needs to be responded to. Number 2264 CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN explained, for the record, that they are local advisory "committees" not "boards." Number 2273 REPRESENTATIVE WILLIAMS stated, if the advisory "boards" are working, why is the state going to court all of the time. Number 2279 MR. MALLOTT replied he does not know what local advisory decisions have spawned litigation. He said, in general, they are working. The evolution of resource management statute's, in the context of subsistence and the notion of taking decision making as much as possible to the local level, is hugely important to the success of the state's resource management system. If people at the local level do not feel that they have been responsibly involved, it is more difficult to make the whole system work. Number 2353 REPRESENTATIVE NICHOLIA explained she is a former member of the Tanana Fish and Game Advisory Council. The council is only allowed one trip to a Board of Fisheries or Board of Game meeting as a result of the budget cuts to the Department of Fish and Game. The department could probably speak better to that, but it does lower the council's input level. Number 2387 CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN referred the committee members to page 4, line 5, and read, "In a time of shortage of fish or game resources, the appropriate board may adopt a regional preference among beneficial uses of fish and game by requiring that the flesh or meat of the game be consumed within the region where the fish or game was taken." The language is followed by criteria of who would be eligible. There is also criteria to determine the sustenance and preferred use areas by shifting the priority to Alaskans first and to ensure that the people in a region, in a time of shortage, have a leg up. The Department of Law will testify that the approach is unconstitutional. Article VIII, Section 4, "sustained yield" says "subject to preferences among beneficial uses." TAPE 98-24, SIDE B Number 0000 CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN continued. It seems that the legislature already has the authority under the state constitution to give a preference of use (sport, commercial, personal, and subsistence). A regional preference, in his opinion, takes care of those that have a need in a time of shortage. If the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA) can be amended to say a "regional preference" rather than a "rural priority" then the state is pretty much on the way to operating within its constitution, and in a very real way protecting those that need the resource the most in a time of shortage. The proposed committee substitute would delegate more authority to a regional board whose members are appointed by the governor and confirmed by the legislature. It would give authority to the main boards to delegate to the regional boards. He asked Mr. Mallott, in reference to equal protection, whether a regional preference as sustenance as the highest and best use would satisfy the real need - practically - of those who truly depend on the resource in a time of shortage. Number 0072 MR. MALLOTT replied using the word "practical" in the context of subsistence is an oxymoron. There is a federal statute that the Alaskan congressional delegation has said they can not change anymore. Most of the efforts involving subsistence have dealt with a system within the context of the federal priority. He has read HB 406, but not with enough detail to comment with any authority upon any aspect of it. But, in reference to the uses, in general, the times are changing in Alaska, and making consumption a use makes sense to him, intuitively. There has been a long-term effort to uncouple resource use with consumption - the notion of catch- and-release, for example. Whether or not a case needs to be made in order to protect ourselves down the line, he is not prepared to comment on that today, but intuitively it makes him wonder. Shifting the focus of subsistence management away from the traditional mechanism, and to uncouple it from the constitutional framework that has operated since statehood, would be a very daunting task. Number 0187 REPRESENTATIVE BARNES stated Title VIII of ANILCA says that subsistence is a "customary and direct dependence as a mainstay of one's livelihood." When it is coupled with the term "rural" there is a problem. She asked Mr. Mallott if a way is found, under the sustained yield and equal protection clauses of the state constitution, to manage subsistence for the customary and direct dependence as a mainstay of one's livelihood without dividing the people and maintaining that consumption is the highest and best use, would the Native community support it. Number 0254 MR. MALLOTT replied he has not found a lack of desire on the part of the Native community to want to make subsistence work. However, it is a profound cultural issue. Rural people feel it is more than just consumption; it is more than just food on the table. They believe very strongly that it has to be classless. He sometimes compares subsistence and what it should be to what the permanent fund dividend has become to Alaskans. The wealthiest Alaskan takes the dividend with the same sense of value as an Alaskan on welfare, the notion of sharing in the collective ownership of the natural resources of the state. The sharing neither diminishes nor gives a greater sense of participation of one person over another, the same desire of Alaskan Natives. They do not want to be separate, but they also have a very powerful cultural attachment to virtually every aspect of life in Alaska. As much as he has been involved in the issue, he has not been able to sever that Gordian knot, but it is a fundamental reality that deserves response in a sensitive manner. He explained he participated on the Governor's subsistence task force to reinstate a framework that would hold together reasonably when working on the issues internally. Number 0426 REPRESENTATIVE BARNES replied the problem is that not just rural Alaskans feel a cultural attachment to the land. There are urban Alaskans - white, Native, black, pink, or yellow - that live off of the land as well. She grew up in a hunting family from the South. Her children have all grown up in a hunting and fishing family. It is their culture too. Not one group of people have a hold on a cultural tradition to the land, and therein lays the problem that needs to be fixed. Number 0474 REPRESENTATIVE FRED DYSON stated he is also in a dilemma because he represents the largest Native community in the Anchorage area - Eklutna. It was originally a fish camp from Copper Center, but it would be excluded from the process in the Governor's task force proposal. He referred to the "eat it where you get it" proposed in Representative Ogan's bill, and asked Mr. Mallott whether the idea was discussed in the task force. Number 0526 MR. MALLOTT replied, "Yes." At the outset the task force members recognized that it was going to be a very difficult task, therefore, two goals were established: to bring the state back into compliance to assume full state management over all fish and game resource on all lands, and to recognize the importance to Alaskans. There was a conscious decision to not even change words because every word in statutes and regulations assumes a very significant meaning over time. Therefore, there was not an attempt to do anything radical or new. The concern of Representative Dyson was addressed through the expansion of the proxy hunt by allowing people from Eklutna to have access to their traditional and community areas by saying that the "majority" of fish or game taken had to remain in a subsistence area - the notion of "use it where you take it." Number 0663 REPRESENTATIVE WILLIAMS stated he has been trying to deal with the subsistence issue for quite some time. He certainly does not want the state divided. He does not want the rural or Native communities to look like they have a leg up on anybody. The Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA) started in about 1962 when the state started selecting lands. The selection stopped due to a freeze as a result of a lawsuit. In 1967, there was a bill in Congress that stated there would be a lands claim settlement act passed, but it did not pass until 1969 when oil was found on the North Slope. The push to settle ANCSA was oil. According to his research, during the negotiations land, money, and subsistence were always at the forefront. And granted it was only a statement in the conference report in 1971 that the subsistence lifestyle of the Alaskan Natives would be taken care of by the Secretary of Interior and the state of Alaska. He said, "We got our money, we got our land, and we're working on subsistence. In 1975, I believe, the state tried to settle this subsistence issue, but it could not at that time because it didn't live up to the constitution like where we are today." Then, there was ANILCA that addressed a subsistence lifestyle for rural communities, but he wondered about the traditional and customary uses being carried forward. Nevertheless, after talking to people in Ketchikan, they do not want to amend the constitution and suggest amending ANILCA for Natives only. He asked Mr. Mallott to expand on the history of where subsistence came from, and what he thinks of the Native only issue. Number 0885 MR. MALLOTT replied, having been involved back then and although the Native community was involved in the development of ANCSA, at critical times we were not in the room. At virtually every point at which critical decisions were made, they were made behind closed doors. That is not to say that the Native community did not have input, but the ultimate mix and decisions were made with Alaska's Natives out of the room even though it was a settlement process. Subsistence is addressed and recognized in the conference report, not because it was important to be in the bill itself, but because it was determined that there was sufficient public policy authority and obligation implied in the responsibility of the Secretary of the Interior for Native affairs. There was not a need for new legislative or statutory authority. The Secretary has sufficient authority and defined responsibilities to be responsive to and meet the subsistence needs of Alaska's Natives. There was also a general recognition that within the framework of Alaska's constitution there was a responsibility to be responsive to the subsistence needs of Alaska's people. Those were the reasons that subsistence was not addressed in ANCSA. The report also indicated that there was an affirmative obligation on the part of both the state and Secretary to be responsive to the subsistence needs. Subsistence became a part of ANILCA as a result of Congress responding to recommendations on how certain other lands in Alaska would be dealt with. He was president of the Alaska Federation of Natives (AFN) when they went back to Washington, D.C. at the start of ANILCA, and specifically asked to include Native subsistence as a preferred use on federal lands. There was strong objection from the state of Alaska, therefore, the language was modified to a rural priority on all lands, should the state meet the requirements of the federal statute to allow management on state lands. Number 1139 MR. MALLOTT further stated, without question, Congress has the authority to enact a Native preference on federal lands should it desire. But Congress chose not to in 1980 because the state objected for many of the reasons being discussed today. If he recalls correctly, the rural preference came from the state of Alaska under the notion of devising a system of subsistence management to meet the needs of all Alaskans, as well as meeting the federal mandate. Eighteen years later the state is living with the consequence of that notion. He reiterated it was a series of decisions that intimately involved the state of Alaska, as well as the federal government that put us where we are today. It was all based on the fundamental notion that the federal government has an obligation to Alaska's Native people to protect their subsistence needs embodied by the Secretary of Interior and carried out on federal lands. Number 1243 CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN acknowledged that there was congressional intent, but the following language was passed into law, "any claim to aboriginal title based on use and occupancy including submerged lands beneath all water areas both inland and offshore and including aboriginal hunting and fishing rights that may exist are hereby extinguished." He is not a lawyer, but it is rather clear that aboriginal claims were extinguished. He believes the state has an obligation morally to the people to ensure that the commitments made in the conference committee report are met and to respect the culture, not just the sustenance needs. He said, "I respect the cultural needs of the people that have it in their heart to hunt and fish because I have that in my heart to hunt and fish too. It's a very important part of what I look forward to and what gets me through this mess every year is knowing that I've got two weeks till my kids get out of school after session, and I get in my boat and I go fishing. Boy, I feel better and I provide for my family and all that, so it's very important. That's why this issue is so passionate because it affects so many people personally." But, there is the troublesome portion of the state constitution - Article I, Section 1, "equal protection." It was made for a reason. There is also the troublesome document called the "Declaration of Independence" - the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. "I believe the right to life is probably as much of an inalienable right, and the right to subsist is as much of an inalienable right as life. If you can't eat, you can't live. And there are some people that are literally in that situation. In fact, our state law recognizes that. It says, if you're in a situation where you're going to suffer bodily harm and you don't have food that you can take it regardless of the season." It boils down to recognizing the cultural needs of Alaskans within the parameters of the constitution. "I honestly believe that if we amend the constitution to give a rural priority, number one, we don't get state management back. We have federal management with a state name on it. We have to adopt ANILCA into our statutes and constitution." In addition, the Secretary's authority would be expanded. He cited, "In accordance with Title VIII of this Act, the Secretary of Interior is required to manage fish and wildlife for subsistence uses on all public lands in Alaska because of the failure in state law to provide a rural preference." He asked Senator Stevens why the state should amend its constitution when the Secretary's authority would be expanded. Senator Stevens replied the authority would go away, if the constitution was amended. But, further language says, "subsection (b) shall be repealed on such date if such laws have not been adopted." Number 1504 MR. MALLOTT replied, with respect to the extinguished rights and claims, they were extinguished as far as Natives are concerned. But, the constitutional relationship between Native Americans and the federal government was not severed. It extinguished Native rights, but it did not extinguish any rights of the federal government. In light of the recent Venetie decision, it is very important to remember there is still Indian country in Alaska. His wife has 160 acres of Indian country on the Yukon River. There are federally recognized tribes in Alaska that have sovereign authority under the federal constitution for certain purposes regarding their members. The federal government has in the past and always will exercise a special relationship with Alaska's Native people. That is not to say, however, that the relationship should impinge upon the rights of others or create a sense of special privilege amongst any group of Alaskans. But, it is a factually and legally based relationship. It is difficult to recognize the reality that the state faces. Alaska's Natives do not want it. They are the last people to want it because ultimately they are the most powerless to enforce, influence or resolve it. In many ways, the folks in rural Alaska are at the mercy of the legislators in recognizing their tremendous obligations. Number 1704 REPRESENTATIVE WILLIAMS stated, according to Senator Stevens, Bill Horn (ph) and other attorneys, aboriginal fishing and hunting rights are property rights. He agreed with bringing the house back together again, but "how do we get around the problem that's before us today. How do we get around a promise that was made back in 1971, a statement that was made in 1971. How do we get around it without looking like we're breaking our promise." If we can get around that then maybe the Natives from around the state would also be trying for an Alaskan solution. Number 1937 CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN stated he believes the state can take care of it by managing for abundance. REPRESENTATIVE WILLIAMS stated anytime somebody says, "I know what's good for you. I know how to take care of you, you'd better watch yourself." Number 1968 CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN stated the bill is a stab at including the spirit of honoring that understanding by managing for abundance and figuring a fair way to determine who depends on the resource when there is not enough to go around. The people who live in rural areas depend on the resource. Number 2010 CO-CHAIRMAN HUDSON stated the problem is that we are trying to identify everything for everybody in a broad sense rather than trying to identify subsistence in a narrow sense. The solution lays in trying to find the cultural requirements of somebody from urban Alaska. Ninety-nine percent of the time resources are taken during normal seasons. The major goal is to identify subsistence in its most limited, but necessary sense. With all due respect to Representative Ogan's approach, it is expansive. It would provide for a cultural taking under times of low harvest for everybody. The issue needs to be turned around by limiting subsistence and taking care of those people who truly have a traditional and customary, and long standing historical use and need for the resource when the harvest is really low. Beyond that, everybody can take it when there is plenty to harvest. It may take some permissive authority within the constitution. Number 2374 CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN recognized the presence of Representative Jeannette James. CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN stated a regional preference of "eat it where you shot it" is not expansive. Number 2408 REPRESENTATIVE JEANNETTE JAMES stated the most important thing that we should be doing today is worrying about how to meet the subsistence needs and how to build trust again between the Natives and non-Natives in the state. The state has been told that there is no other way than to amend the constitution to reflect a rural priority. TAPE 98-25, SIDE A Number 0000 REPRESENTATIVE JAMES continued. She agreed that in the beginning there was a promise made to the Natives to protect their subsistence rights for their survival. But, Congress made an error when it did not do it that way and replaced it with rural. "I have taken Senator Stevens to task a number of times when he says in one breath that we, the federal government, have a right to protect the Natives. It is our chore and it is our obligation. And then, he turns around in a next breath and says that 50 percent of the people who qualify for subsistence under a rural priority are non- Native. Now, you can't have it both ways. If he wants to protect the Natives then protect the Natives and lets say it's a Native preference. I have no problem with that. Had he done that in the first place we wouldn't be here arguing today." As a result, subsistence can not be defined without the help of the Natives and the governor. In her heart she believes that the needs for subsistence can be defined within the confines of the existing state constitution. But, if it needs to be delineated to make it perfectly clear, then it can be done. The reality is an amendment for a rural priority is not going to happen. There are only a few months left so lets work together for a solution. She asked Mr. Mallott to respond to her comments. Number 0216 MR. MALLOTT replied a rural priority was difficult for the Native community to accept in 1980 because it was going to be difficult to define and there were going to be inequities. The federal system uses a geographical determination based on population that does not stand up to time. Nevertheless, having said that, he wants to continue to make it work over time. Number 0356 MR. MALLOTT further stated that the Native community for the longest time held on to ANILCA because they were concerned about state management, not necessarily the legislature, but how administrations over the years have managed, and how user-interests have influenced and driven decision making to the point that a subsistence priority could disappear. Recently, the Native community was shaken when several members of the Alaskan congressional delegation said ANILCA could be changed, maybe. In general, if everybody could move forward at the same pace - the legislature, administration and Native community - in a deliberate process, then we could get where we want to be, but the longest stage of the process would be in building trust. Number 0533 REPRESENTATIVE NICHOLIA stated she lives at the confluence of the Yukon and Tanana rivers. Every fall there are thousands of hunters from Anchorage, Palmer, Kenai, and Fairbanks. She wonders about the hunters who travel thousands of miles and spend hundreds of dollars to hunt in the area she lives where gas and groceries are not cheap. She wonders, therefore, if it is a cultural, subsistence, or merely a sport activity when they spend hundreds of dollars to get to where she is when they can buy their groceries much cheaper. Number 0645 MR. MALLOTT replied he has been a big game guide and an outfitter, as well as a subsistence user. She is being charitable when she says hundreds of dollars because it is probably thousands of dollars. The activity is important to them, but there are ways to bifurcate subsistence and sport seasons so that there is enough for everybody. The conflict comes when there is a management system that limits the take then katybars the door. In that case, the people with the most capability would probably harvest the majority of the resource. "When you discuss subsistence in a cultural context in Alaska, the powerful differentiation, and it is an overwhelmingly powerful differentiation, is that this was our land. It literally was, all of Alaska. Every place that Alaskan Natives exist was their land. They did not come here from anywhere else. The sustenance, the value of that land, the spirituality, is as strong today as it was, I'm sure, ten thousand years ago." There is a different cultural context, and there are powerful feelings, if there is competition for a resource and the local people feel that they are at a disadvantage. Having said that, however, it has to be dealt with. Public policy needs to be crafted so that it is fair to all those involved. From a Native point of view, there is absolutely no way to keep sport hunters out of areas that are attractive without the wrath of the public. But, that creates just as much of an obligation on the part of public policy makers to make sure that it does not happen. When there are conflicts, it is not "your fault, it is not my fault, it is the systems' fault." No matter how difficult it is, the Native people have to continue to pick themselves up, dust themselves off, and start all over again. "As Alaska's Native people, we have no choice. There's no where else for us to retreat." It becomes an imperative to make it work, not just for the Natives, but for everybody. Number 0913 REPRESENTATIVE BEVERLY MASEK asked Mr. Mallott how he feels about subsistence being a right or privilege. Number 0927 MR. MALLOTT replied the Alaska Native Subsistence Summit included in its policy statement subsistence as a fundamental human right. House Bill 406 posits that sustenance is similar to a fundamental human right. Alaska's Native people who practice subsistence believe its value goes beyond mere taking and use. Whether something is a right or privilege is a matter of semantics because in Alaska the reality is such that subsistence will be treated as a right by everybody who feels strongly about it, a reality that public policy needs to be responsive to. Number 1016 REPRESENTATIVE MASEK explained she wants to know whether it is a right or privilege to him, personally. Number 1028 MR. MALLOTT replied, personally, when he lives in Juneau he considers it a privilege. If he was invited home to harvest, while still living in Juneau, the request would be considered a right. If he was to live and immerse himself in the lifestyle again, it would be a right that he would defend with every fiber in his being until something better came along. Number 1106 REPRESENTATIVE MASEK asked Mr. Mallott, based on all the comments and hearings to this time, whether it is appropriate for the legislature to pass legislation that would create a different class. Number 1185 MR. MALLOTT replied it is necessary to recognize that the words used have, unfortunately, driven us apart as opposed to bringing us together. They have different meanings to all of us, and those meanings become very powerful in our use of them. There is no subsistence statute or regulation that gives Natives a priority. There never has been and whether or not there will be would require an act of the United States Congress. The rural preference was an effort in federal statute in a federal management scheme on federal lands in Alaska to recognize the obligation of the federal government to Native American peoples' subsistence needs. The Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act also gave the state, as a result of negotiations, the opportunity to manage all lands in Alaska, if it were to adopt the federal priority. Thus far, we have a range of subsistence management activity that is fundamentally classless and that does not differentiate amongst people on a racial or economic basis. The issue became very value laden at the time of the McDowell decision for the state. The federal government's role has been largely ministerially, until several years ago when there was a series of rural challenges. Until such time, it has been very reluctant to assume its management responsibilities. It took legal action and court direction to compel the federal government to get where it is today. But, we can all agree that it has taken on momentum and a life of its own. If the federal government was to exercise its right under the federal constitution to enact a Native priority for subsistence uses on federal lands, it would work fine for some places, but not for places where there are no federal lands or not enough resources to meet subsistence requirements. Including the system on state lands, there would be two completely different value structures involved within the state. He has not heard anybody say that they want it that way, not even the Natives. He tries to continue to look at the issue in a practical way, as opposed to a value-laden and rhetorical way. Number 1470 REPRESENTATIVE BARNES stated, to clarify the record, rural did not appear in state statutes until 1986. It appeared first in ANILCA in 1980. It did not come out of state law. Furthermore, in regards to hunting costing money in the context of a rural preference, how could we justify a federal or state employee who lives in a rural area and makes in excess of $100,000 a year qualifying for a rural subsistence priority when he or she could access good through services such as Costco. In addition, in regards to urban sportsmen spending a lot of money to hunt, rural Natives use snowmobiles and 4-wheelers, the modern conveniences that urban sportsmen would use to hunt and fish. She wondered how a scenario could be set up so that somebody in urban Alaskan who really needs the resource for sustenance would not qualify, but a federal or state employee in rural Alaska that makes more money than somebody in urban Alaska would qualify. Number 1610 MR. MALLOTT replied, he spent a considerable amount of time in Washington, D.C. during that time and it was made very clear to him, as president of AFN, that there would not be an ANILCA resolution without the active support of Alaska. He can recall very clearly, although the state might not have put forth the rural language, without the agreement of the state the language would not be in ANILCA today. Number 1683 REPRESENTATIVE BARNES stated there was a resolution, the only official document anywhere, passed by the legislature with 25 or 27 cosponsors. It contained seven points of the only things that the legislature would accept as a state in federal legislation. Even former Governor Jay Hammond's administration clearly said that there should not be any federal legislation because it did not contain the seven points. Number 1747 MR. MALLOTT replied much of the state's focus on ANILCA at the time had to do with the land withdrawals and the overall impact on the state of which subsistence was just a part. If the state had been in active opposition to a rural priority, it would have been difficult for Congress to pass it. Furthermore, it does not make sense for someone with a substantial income to take advantage of a subsistence priority simply because of where he or she lives. The implications of a needs-based system, however, would tear apart the fabric of a community. Practically, it seems to make more sense if the impact on the resource is able to be accommodated, if the community can be held together, and if some fall through the mesh, it is a small price to pay to have the system work in the best way possible for the people involved. With respect to urban dwellers availing themselves to subsistence resources, the state has made some effort with the proxy hunting rules. MR. MALLOTT further stated a fair management system needs to be built. If there are concerns of co-management, a system should be created to allow for cooperative management by giving the appropriate agencies the authorization to enter into such an agreement with legislative or board oversight, if necessary. Lets walk through a process that would ultimately allow us all to be comfortable with it. Otherwise, we just stand on the outside and throw rocks at each other. Cooperative management almost is anti- American to some folks, while it is a very benign way to allow local people to be involved in decision making to other folks. But, when dealing on the basis of a cooperative management, the issues can be resolved because all of the parties would have a stake in the issue so that hopefully there could be an agreement. Number 1987 REPRESENTATIVE NICHOLIA stated, for the record, she is not anti- urban hunting. She welcomes urban hunters to the Tanana area under the general hunting regulations. The people from her area become very worried that they are not getting their share of moose in times of shortages, however. Moose play an important part in their culture in terms of their spirituality and daily lives. She reiterated she does not have a problem with hunters coming from Anchorage, Fairbanks, Palmer, or even the Lower Forty-Eight. She has spent time talking to them and they usually are there for a piece of mind. Number 2057 CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN thanked Mr. Mallott for coming today. According to his comments, the idea of regionalism is moving in the right direction to help with the trust issue by empowering the local people. This might not be the exact perfect way, but it is a step in the right direction. Number 2099 CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN announced on Thursday, March 5, 1998 he intends to introduce a draft committee substitute. He welcomes any input from the committee members. It is not perfect yet. We are getting really close to moving a piece of legislation out of the committee.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|