Legislature(1995 - 1996)
03/29/1995 10:05 AM Senate RES
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
SJR 19 AMEND ANILCA TO DEFINE PUBLIC LANDS
CHAIRMAN LEMAN called the Senate Resources meeting to order at
10:05 a.m. in Fairbanks. He announced testimony would be taken
first from those people representing organizatons by the Committee
who were invited, and then from the public. He stated SJR 19 asks
Congress to clarify the definition of "public lands," among other
things. The issue is not subsistence rights, but a state's rights
issue over who will manage Alaska's resources, he said.
Number 120
SENATOR LINCOLN commented she is anxious to hear testimony from the
general public and is extremely disappointed the testimony is
"listen only" to the outlying areas. She noted a hearing would be
held in Soldotna at a later date to take testimony from the rest of
the state. She expressed disappointment that committee packets
contained selected excerpts from the Attorney General's
presentation to the Joint House and Senate on March 8, and not the
complete testimony given at the hearing.
Number 159
SENATOR HOFFMAN stated whenever the issue of access to fish and
game resources arises, the question of subsistence comes into play.
In asking Congress to change ANILCA, the issue of subsistence and
access to fish and game resources is raised. Regarding equal
access, the Legislature made changes to the Alaska Constitution
regarding preference to fisheries. He believed if the state wants
to manage fish and game resources, changes should be made to the
state constitution.
Number 180
SENATOR HALFORD noted his support for SJR 19, and remarked federal
management has been a disaster on land management and will be on
water management if the state loses the Katie John case. He
explained how the following court decisions are affecting
management decisions. The court issued a decision in the Bobby
case stating subsistence cannot be limited at all until all other
uses are eliminated. The Roe case in Southeast Alaska allows
subsistence users to sell subsistence resources for cash under
customary and traditional trade for up to $15,000 for an individual
sale, and $75,000 in the aggregate. He does not believe that was
the intention of the original preference, however if that kind of
standard is applied, the management structure cannot possibly work.
He believed the state could deal with subsistence under the Alaska
Constitution, but amendments need to be made to ANILCA because the
federal system, as designed by the courts, does not work.
Number 200
SENATOR FRANK commented ANILCA needs to be amended to make it work
and that subsistence can be made to work without a constitutional
amendment. He noted Governor Hickel's subsistence council produced
a lot of good work, and he expressed disappointment that the work
did not move forward. He supported SJR 19.
Number 209
SENATOR MILLER, prime sponsor of SJR 19, stated he does not believe
SJR 19 to be a challenge to the federal subsistence preference; it
is a simple resolution requesting Congress to recommit to
obligations made to the state of Alaska in the Statehood Compact,
and to reconfirm that ANILCA was not intended to preempt state
management of fish and game resources. The issue is one of state's
rights; if the federal government is able to change items in the
Statehood Compact without legislative participation, a dangerous
precedent will be set. The Alaska Legislature needs to make a
statement opposing such federal authority, otherwise other state
authority issues will be forfeited. Secondly, SJR 19 requests that
Congress reaffirm its original intent and amend ANILCA to clarify
the term "federal lands" so that no misinterpretation by the court
system can occur.
Number 244
SENATOR PEARCE, co-sponsor of SJR 19, thanked the committee for
holding public hearings throughout the state. She is convinced the
state is facing a major crisis - the loss of its right to manage
fish and wildlife resources. ANILCA contained a provision that
created a priority for subsistence taking of fish and wildlife by
rural Alaskan residents on federal public land. The intent of
Congress was that Alaska would assume management on all lands in
the state by meeting the requirements of ANILCA's Title VIII.
However, an Alaska Supreme Court ruling determined Alaska to be out
of compliance with federal law, and a District Court ruling
authorized the federal government to preempt state management in
navigable waters. This is a complete reversal by the federal
government which initially limited public lands in ANILCA to
federal lands and waters. Changes to Title VIII of ANILCA are
essential to correct flaws and put Alaska in compliance with its
mandates. Because no immediate consensus on the ultimate solution
is possible, she has co-sponsored SJR 19, as it is one area in
which a consensus can be reached quickly. SJR 19 does not
challenge the subsistence priority on federal lands and waters; it
asks Congress to reconfirm state jurisdiction on state and private
lands and waters. The alternative would be to allow the federal
courts to continue their course of selectively revising the intent
of Congress.
CHAIRMAN LEMAN announced the committee would take public testimony.
Number 325
MORRIS THOMPSON, President of Doyon Limited, testified in
opposition to SJR 19. He stated his disappointment that the issue
is being defined as one of state's rights and that no one has
discussed the fact that the state court has struck down legislative
actions to resolve this issue. He expressed dismay that the
hearings were scheduled in urban areas, and that this meeting is
being held in Fairbanks while the Village Participation Conference
is occurring in Juneau. He stated people living in rural areas
should have a hunting and fishing preference in times of shortage
since urban residents have the opportunity to shop at food stores,
and to work for wages. Many village people have chosen to live a
traditional Alaska lifestyle, and depend on subsistence for their
food and to sustain their culture. Subsistence differentiates
rural Alaskans from people who live in other parts of the state.
It is a source of pride and identity, requires self dependence,
builds character, and provides a model for youth. He discussed the
history of ANILCA, and Congress' expectation that the state would
protect those people practicing a traditional subsistence
lifestyle. Congress granted a subsistence priority on lands
subject to federal jurisdiction in ANILCA to protect that
lifestyle, but consciously excluded fishing from the rural
subsistence preference. It also provided an incentive for state
management of resources throughout the state, by requiring a rural
preference. For a decade, a serious subsistence problem did not
exist and the state operated under the ANILCA mandates. The
Legislature enacted a subsistence law, which was ratified by the
voters. The problem occurred in 1989, when the Alaska Supreme
Court ruled the subsistence law unconstitutional. He spoke in
support of an amendment to the state constitution to be approved by
the voters, to resolve the issue as SJR 19 does not respect
subsistence and will not gain Congressional support.
Number 453
SENATOR LEMAN noted, in response to Mr. Thompson's remark about the
committee schedule, the meeting was planned for the previous
Saturday, but due to schedule conflicts with other legislators, the
meeting was rescheduled. This was the only time to hold the
meeting before the middle of April. He apologized for the conflict
with the Village Participation Conference.
Number 467
Lynn Livengood, a member of the Fairbanks Advisory Committee to the
Alaska Board of Fish and Game, testified in support of SJR 19. The
Fairbanks Advisory Committee has had a long standing commitment to
equal opportunity for all Alaskans for Alaska's wildlife resources
and opposes federal management of those resources. The issue is
one of state's rights; Alaska cannot allow the federal government
to create an apartheid division on subsistence. The Alaska
Constitution needs to be upheld and supported at all costs. ANILCA
did not alter the Statehood Compact with the federal government and
needs to be amended to recognize that Alaska has subsistence
statutes that give preference to those who rely upon the resources
in times of shortages. The questions on subsistence license
applications have a residency-weighted preference. The current
federal rural preference wrongfully assumes that only rural
residents rely upon subsistence. He questioned whether the rural
preference is a racial preference, since many of the advocates of
the rural preference talk in terms of conserving a culture,
heritage, or tradition. ANILCA extinguished all aboriginal claims,
and gave all Alaskans equal access to Alaska's wildlife resources.
He stated rural residents have an easier time trying to preserve
their culture and hunt in rural areas than native peoples in urban
areas. He believes the creation of a preference encourages racism.
Number 544
MITCH DEMIENTIEFF, Chairman of the Legislation Litigation Committee
for the Tanana Chiefs Conference, testified that SJR 19 would
deepen the chasm between federal and state management of resources.
He believes it is difficult enough to manage Alaska's resources
under one management system, and impossible to manage it under the
current system. By further entrenching that system, the resource
will suffer. It took a great deal of time to train the state to
manage the resources under state management, and many mistakes were
made. He reiterated his opinion that single management is
critical.
TAPE 95-30, SIDE B
DICK BISHOP, representing the Alaska Outdoor Council, testified in
support of SJR 19. He discussed the membership and purpose of the
Alaska Outdoor Council: to advocate sound management of fish and
game resources, and to maintain public access to these resources
consistent with the Alaska Constitution. The Council supports
subsistence uses and lifestyles, but opposes an arbitrary, closed
class type of priority, such as a rural one. The Council also
strongly supports the individual right to keep and bear arms. He
believes SJR 19 targets and resolves the confusion created by the
construction of ANILCA.
Mr. Bishop stated the Council believes there is an insidious
invasion of fish and game management authority by the federal
government, and applauds the Legislature for addressing the issue.
The federal government is not authorized by Congress to override
the Statehood Act and Compact, nor is it authorized to extend
federal management to state and private lands or waters. Two
attorney general opinions support this position. In 1982,
Assistant Attorney General Robert Price prepared a legal analysis
stating, "however the Secretary has no authority to regulate fish
and wildlife by setting seasons, bag limits, or means or methods of
harvest." The second analysis by Paul Lanzini in 1992, a
nationally prominent fish and game lawyer and former Dept. of Law
attorney, was done at the request of the Alaska Outdoor Council,
specifically to address the question of whether the federal
government had authority to extend management to non-federal lands.
Mr. Lanzini concluded "ANILCA makes no provision for extension of
federal regulatory power over non-federal lands and waters."
Additionally, he stated, "Congress has not exerted its property
clause power in ANILCA so as to authorize an extension of federal
management of fish and wildlife to state and private lands and
waters, even after the federal government assumes administration of
the ANILCA subsistence management system."
Number 523
SENATOR HALFORD asked people providing testimony to suggest methods
of dealing with the definitions provided by the federal courts. To
find a solution, the Southeast Roe case, the sale for cash in large
quantities, the Lime Village Case, and the proposition that all
other uses must first be eliminated, must be dealt with. A
constitutional amendment will not resolve the issues created by
those court cases.
RALPH SEEKINS, representing the Alaska Wildlife Conservation
Association (AWCA), stated that AWCA believes the solution to this
issue is already contained in the state constitution in the phrase,
"maximum sustained yield for human harvest." If the state was not
giving a higher priority to predators than to humans, the problem
of how to divide up the remaining animals would not exist.
According to the Alaska Department of Fish and Game, more than
600,000 moose, caribou, and sheep babies will be born in the state
this year, and in excess of 87 percent will be food for predators,
not for humans. The human harvest is less than three percent of
the harvestable surplus every year. If the Constitution is
amended, or ANILCA is changed, and no guarantee of the right to
manage the state's fish and game resources occurs, nothing will be
gained. AWCA believes the federal government's intent is to manage
fish and game in Alaska, and that they should not be able to do so
unless they make those same decisions in all other states. The
AWCA does not believe in apartheid by zip code, and remaining
divisive on this issue will only empower anti-hunting groups. He
reiterated the answer is in providing the resource for the people,
not predators, and in granting a priority to those people who rely
on the resource, regardless of location. He discussed the fact
that only 10 percent of registered voters and permanent fund
dividend recipients statewide purchase hunting licenses, and the
percentage is the same for rural and urban areas. Those statistics
do not indicate a higher rural reliance on fish and game resources.
the AWCA supports SJR 19 as a step to protect state's rights.
LYNETTE CLARK, representing the Alaskan Independence Party (AIP),
testified in support of SJR 19. She asked that copies of the
Statehood Compact, the Alaska Constitution, and the Omnibus Act be
sent to those noted in the final section of SJR 19 to show them the
contracts they entered into in 1958, and other dates shortly
thereafter. The passage of ANILCA and ANCSA was in direct
violation of Alaska's Statehood Compact and has driven a large
wedge between people in the state.
DEXTER CLARK, representing the Alaska Reclamation Group, made an
attempt to stake a claim to a road that they believe belongs to the
state of Alaska, but was told by the federal government that was an
inadvertent act. He read a poem by Garrison Keillor about liars.
He noted the seriousness of the issue lies in its divisiveness.
KEN VORSEK, testified on behalf of the Golden North Archers
Association (GNAA). He disagreed that people should be denied
equal opportunity to experience and utilize wildlife because of the
color of one's skin or because of one's income level. ANILCA flies
in the face of a constitutional guarantee that all people should be
free and treated equally, by giving preferential treatment to one
race, or locale of people, over other American citizens. The only
way to change that discriminatory policy is to change ANILCA.
Number 229
JERRY SAMM, representing the Alaska Federation of Natives,
testified in opposition to SJR 19. He is from a village six miles
above the Arctic Circle, only accessible by airplane. Rural
residents must provide food for their families, and the main source
of that food is acquired by fishing and hunting. Government
regulations do not always coincide with the villagers' need for
food, therefore they do not follow them. The villagers only
protection lies with ANILCA. Rural Alaskans are aboriginals who
rely on subsistence food.
Number 176
CHUCK GREY, Interior Wildlife Association, supported SJR 19. He
felt rural people have always been taken care of in the area of
game management. Seasons have been set later in rural areas so
that people can take game when they can keep it. More recently,
large areas of interior Alaska are closed to urban hunters. He
commented on the Babbitt case in which Judge Holland stated he
could not find anything in the Congressional record to support
federal management of game in Alaska, but felt Congress made a
mistake, so granted it the right to do so.
Number 76
SENATOR LEMAN introduced a group of students from Lathrop High
School who were attending the meeting.
BONNIE WILLIAMS, representing the Republican Party of Alaska, gave
the following testimony in support of SJR 19.
The U.S. Bill of Rights was ratified in 1791; those 10
amendments to the Constitution spell out our sacred God-
given rights that take precedence over anything in the
Constitution, and anything that may be conceived by
Congress, the President, the courts, or states. These
are inalienable rights, and are what make us free
Americans in a nation of law. They spell out our rights
and say that we are equal under the law, equal in our
access to those rights. In the 1850's, realizing that
slavery was incompatible with these ideals and truths
forming the foundation of our nation, the Republican
Party of America was formed, by Abraham Lincoln, another
thoughtful man of the age. By 1860, we were locked in a
terrible civil war, with Republicans on one side saying
freedom to the individual - no slavery, and with
Southerners on the other side saying states' rights were
more important. We all know who won. The 13th Amendment
to the Constitution banned slavery forever. The 14th
Amendment said that all laws applied equally to all
people, regardless of race. The 15th Amendment said that
the right to vote could not be denied by reason of race,
color, or previous condition of servitude. In 1919, the
19th Amendment said the right to vote could not be denied
by reason of sex. In 1971, the 26th Amendment said that
the right to vote for those 18 and older could not be
denied by reason of age. The Constitution of the state
of Alaska, written in 1956, reflects these ideals of
equality, this culminating pinnacle for which men have
died time and time again, knowing they were right.
Article 1, Section 1, states: this Constitution is
dedicated to the principles that all persons have a
natural right to life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness
and the enjoyment of the rewards of their own industry,
that all persons are equal and entitled to equal rights,
opportunities, and protection under the law, and that all
persons have corresponding obligations to the people and
to the state. Section 3 states: no person is to be
denied the enjoyment of any civil or political right
because of race, color, creed, sex, or national origin.
Article 8, Section 3 states: wherever occurring in their
natural state, fish, wildlife and waters are reserved to
the people for common use. The Republican Party of
Alaska places the individual, and his rights and
responsibilities, over, above, and higher than those of
any collective. We are the party that fought to free the
slaves, that first nominated a woman for national office,
that first elected women to state office, that today have
women in leadership roles in both state House and Senate,
something only one other state has ever attained. ANILCA
flies against the beliefs of the Republican Party, and
sets back over 200 years of solid efforts to achieve
equality. It divides Alaskans into classes, and demands
that one class of citizens receive more than other
classes. It erases equality.
TAPE 95-31, SIDE A
MS. WILLIAMS continued.
ANILCA must be amended, restore the management of fish
and game to Alaska, and together, with open hearts,
address the problems of subsistence, as Alaskans, for
Alaska. ANILCA is wrong, it contains inequalities, basic
unmistakable unfairness. We can't build the future of
our state on inequality or unfairness. We cannot live
together in respect in a condition of inequality and
unfairness. We cannot achieve justice, for anyone at
all, if there is injustice for some. Our forefathers
knew this before, and during, the Civil War. They knew
it in the Brown decision in 1956, they knew it in the
Civil Rights Act of 1963, they knew it in the Molly
Hootch decision. There must be justice for all, or there
is justice for none. I urge you to approve SJR 19, and
I urge Congress to amend ANILCA.
Number 059
TOM SCARBOROUGH, representing the Tanana Valley Sportmens'
Association (TVSA), testified. He expressed his gratitude to the
committee for holding the hearing because the problems caused by
the federal government are much larger than the subsistence issue.
Now that the subsistence issue has entered into the arena of
fisheries, it has grabbed the attention of a much larger sector of
the state. He believes the core issue to be the Constitution, and
problems with ANILCA to be a by-product. The federal government
must be brought back to within the bounds of our federal
Constitution, and the debate needs to center around how best to
accomplish that. Until then, the Katie John case and the Lime
Village case will not be resolved, and the federal government will
continue to ignore the state's requests. Judge Holland violated
federal law when he fabricated his decision on the Babbitt case.
Other western states are a light year ahead, in how they are
dealing with the federal government. Many groups have organized to
debate what needs to be done to bring the huge federal bureaucracy
back within the constraints of the U.S. Constitution. There are
only 18 elements the federal government is allowed to manage. TVSA
has been involved in this issue for many years, and they support
SJR 19 as a first step.
Number 156
DENNIS PETRIE, representing the Alaska Sportfishing Association,
and the Valdez Charter Fishing Association, testified in support of
SJR 19. The state of Alaska should have the right to manage all
fish and game resources, and all Alaskans should be treated
equally. Currently, the federal government manages 98.5 percent of
the fisheries off the coast of Alaska. Last year, under federal
management, there were over 740 million pounds of by-catch, other
areas have been stripped of crab, and the stellar sea lion
population has decreased substantially. The fisheries nationwide
are being destroyed, under federal management. SJR 19 needs to
pass to show Alaskans want state management, as well as bills
changing the Board of Fish and Game so that everyone can sit down
as an equal to resolve the issues.
JOE STRUNKA, read the following testimony from Bill Dunham of the
Delta Sportsmens' Club, for the record.
I would like to make the following comments concerning
SJR 19, requesting Congress to amend ANILCA. I cannot
attend the teleconference in Fairbanks, and would like to
have these comments read into the record by another
person.
1. SJR 19 needs to be passed as quickly as
possible. Subsistence priority on federal
land and elsewhere in Alaska is in conflict
with our constitutional rights as Alaskans and
is also in conflict with our rights of equal
protection under the law. No Alaskan should
have more rights to a state resource than any
other Alaskan, regardless of where he resides
in the state, and regardless of any other
artificial means of discrimination based on
race, sex, etc. The federal government should
have no right to intervene in this because
this issue is not directly addressed to the
U.S. Constitution, and so should be left to
the state of Alaska, Bill of Rights Amendment
10. I also think a good case could be made
that giving subsistence priority privileges to
some Alaskans and denying them to other
Alaskans constitutes a violation of the U.S.
Constitution Amendment 14, Section 1, which
states that, "No state shall make or enforce
any law which shall abridge the privileges or
immunities of the citizens of the United
States."
2. Everyone understands the necessity of a
stranded person's need to stay alive on
whatever he may scrounge, but in other cases
forget it. Subsistence should not be an
addition to our current welfare programs. We
already have fish and game licensing
requirements which require low fees for
indigents. Anyone who says he could not eat
well for a year under Alaska's regular hunting
license regulations is a liar. Contrary to
Mother Earth News fantasies, almost no one can
live off the fat of the land without a fair
dose of food stamps, energy assistance, health
services, AFDC, the dividend, and sometimes a
rich Aunt Martha who helps out from time to
time. In Alaska, people don't really subsist
on caribou or moose any more than they subsist
on cottontails in Illinois. The federal
government needs to be told this in no
uncertain terms. Please pass SJR 19. While
it is only a first step, at least it is in the
right direction.
GREG MUHACHUK testified for the Fairbanks Snow Travellers in
support of both SJR 19 and HJR 33. He noted a clear definition of
"public land" is necessary, and as a state's rights issue; federal
managers need to be kept within their defined boundaries. He took
great exception to comments made in rural areas, claiming the
people wanting to amend ANILCA are anti-native. He believed there
may be a handful of people who truly live a subsistence lifestyle,
but very few. He concluded that instead of fighting over a rural
priority, all Alaskans need to work together to manage fish and
game to prevent shortages.
BYRON HALLEY, Chignik Dipnetters Association, gave the following
testimony in support of SJR 19. When Alaska became a state in
1959, it was given the right to manage fish and wildlife by the
Statehood Compact. The Compact cannot be legally changed without
the consent of both parties and the Alaska party consists of the
residents of Alaska. Alaskans never voted or agreed to give up the
right to manage Alaska's fish and wildlife. The federal government
has illegally broken this compact by taking over the management of
fish and wildlife on federal lands in Alaska, to manage
subsistence. They say the state of Alaska is not in compliance
because we do not have a rural preference in the state
constitution. Congress accepted the Alaska Constitution as written
in 1959. When Alaska entered into the Union it was on equal
footing with all of the other states. The Compact guaranteed
authority for fish and wildlife management for the State of Alaska.
The Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of Agriculture have
threatened the preemption of fish and wildlife management on state
and private lands and water which would be another breach of the
Compact. The preemption authority has never been granted to these
Secretaries in ANILCA. The navigable waters rights were given to
the state of Alaska, by law, by the Congress of the United States,
not by the Secretary of the Interior or Agriculture. ANILCA needs
to be amended to make sure that "public lands" mean only federal
public lands and waters and the rural preference classification
should be taken out of the Act. The removal of the rural
classification from ANILCA will not stop subsistence. The state of
Alaska still has a subsistence law. When Governor Tony Knowles
dropped the state's lawsuit of Alaska vs. Babbitt, he went against
the Alaska Constitution, which he swore to uphold, and the state's
rights to manage fish and wildlife resources. This resolution is
just one step on the road to get the state's rights back that have
been illegally taken from the state of Alaska by the Secretary of
the Interior.
HAROLD ATLAU, General Manager of Kwethluk, a native corporation
which owns the lands on the Kikuk River, stated he is in support of
equality, however people in the village depend on wildlife and
continue to be raised dependent on the resources. If more people
come to Alaska, it will threaten the way of life in the village.
There are fewer job opportunities in the village, so the people
rely on the resources more. He fears the village people will be
crowded out of their economic base, their resources, in the future.
He discussed how village life is different from urban life.
JERRY ISAAC, President of the Tanacross Village Council, gave the
following testimony in opposition to SJR 19. Many times over the
years testimony has been taken on this issue, which is based upon
race. He agrees the U.S. constitutional ideals are based upon the
protection of individual rights, however as a minority, he is
forced to revert to the check and balance system provided by the
Constitution to safeguard his people's rights. He is also in
agreement with the comments made about the right to be self
governing. The native leadership has been talking about
sovereignty and individual liberties and self government for a
number of years. The Alaska public promotes one side of the issue
only. The State of Alaska has not been very supportive of native
views, that is why he relies on the ideals of the theory of the
check and balance system. Without that, the native rights issues
and ideals will never see the light of day. He does not contend
that others do not have the right to fish and hunt, he would defend
others' right to do so. Many of his family members have died while
defending the U.S. Constitution in wars overseas, yet his people
are not treated in accordance with this sacred document. The
Legislature is obligated, as a representative body of all interests
in the state, to end divisiveness over this issue, yet it
contributes to it. He agrees the state must regain management
rights of fish and game in Alaska, but not until he feels free and
safe from discrimination in this state.
TAPE 95-31, SIDE B
JENNIFER SCOTT, a student from Lathrop High School, testified in
opposition to SJR 19. She believes the issue to be state's rights,
not race. Within the state's rights issue, the distinction is one
of a person's economic base and way of life. Discrimination has
already been established in favor of commercial fishermen in the
Alaska Constitution. To respect another group's economic way of
life would not be discriminatory. Regarding federal jurisdiction
over land management, that control was taken from the state to
protect a people or way of life that has existed for a long time.
No one's right to hunt or fish should be taken away, however there
is a big difference between sport fishing and living on what one
catches. All Alaskans have the right to live off the land, if they
so choose.
MARK McFARLAND, a senior from Lathrop High School, stated he
believes SJR 19 would squelch the subsistence lifestyle that people
who live in rural Alaska need to live. Equality needs to be based
on economics since those people cannot compete with hunters with an
income of $50,000 per year for their needs. Native Alaskans have
never been asked for their consent to legislation that has been
passed by the state, and they never asked to be invaded by the
white, European culture. It is difficult to believe that taking
away their subsistence rights would equalize rural residents with
urban dwellers. The people who were here for thousands of years
have some right to the resources. They are not able to compete in
an equitable fashion with those who have gone to college and have
steady jobs.
Number 546
SENATOR LEMAN thanked all of the Lathrop High School students who
attended the hearing for doing so. SENATOR LINCOLN commented she
believes youth to be our most important resource; they should be
working on consensus building for SJR 19.
CLEM CLOOTEN testified in support of SJR 19 because the state must
continue to fight for state's rights.
KEN CHARLIE, Chief of Minto, testified in opposition to both SJR 19
and HJR 33, as they lay the groundwork for removing protections to
Alaska native people under Title 8 of ANILCA. He discussed the
loss of wildlife in the Minto flats and other areas around
Fairbanks due to population growth. SJR 19 would diminish
protection from further encroachment.
Number 574
BERTHA MOSES, representing Allakaket and other rural people who
live a subsistence lifestyle, testified. She was raised with a
subsistence lifestyle, in a large family, in an area with no jobs,
and few furbearing animals. She and her husband raised 11 children
with a subsistence lifestyle. They used all parts of the animal to
make clothing and food, which most people still do. She stated not
everyone who lives a subsistence lifestyle uses food stamps or
other forms of public assistance, as some individuals want to be
independent. She added the idea of trophy hunting is foreign to
native people. She noted she and her husband lived in Fairbanks
for 11 years but had to have food from the village, which was
provided by her children. The subsistence lifestyle is their way
of life. She spoke for all people who live that lifestyle, not
only native people.
JOHNSON MOSES, an Allakaket resident, stated around 1930, there
were very few animals around Allakaket. The animal population had
been depleted around the turn of the century and the villagers
lived on small game and birds. Nothing was wasted, tools were made
from the bones. The game wardens threatened to imprison him in
Fairbanks if he hunted out of season. There was very little
communication between the village people and the game warden. He
learned how to survive in the forest from his grandfather, who
raised him as a child.
Number 338
CHARLES PARKER, Economic Development Specialist for the Tanana
Chiefs Conference, gave the following testimony:
In the past decade, public awareness of crucial
environmental issues has grown dramatically. The average
person has come to understand the detrimental affects
that human existence has on the rest of the natural
world. As technology continues to advance, often with
unforeseen hazardous side effects, and the world's human
population continues to grow at an alarming rate, the
animal and plant populations continue to be stressed
beyond reasonable limits. Even today, state and federal
agencies are scrambling to define what a "sustainable
yield" is. Imagine 30 years from now when the earth's
population has reached staggering levels, there will be
even more pressure on an even smaller resource base.
There is no possible way for unlimited equal access to be
considered sustainable in the long term. This means that
someone has to decide who gets first access in times of
shortage, and there will be times of shortage. Now when
people start lining up for some social service programs,
they have to qualify according to certain regulations,
due to the fact that there are limited resources
available. The primary qualification is need. By the
same logic, when there are not enough animals to go
around for everyone who wants to go out hunting, who gets
first priority for what is available? Is it the sport
hunter who just wants a rack for his trophy wall? Is it
the gentleman who doesn't want to go to Disneyland and
decides he wants to go out hunting instead? Is it the
person who is tired of burgers and steaks and wants to
dine on a little moose meat? I'm sure there are many
people testifying before you today who would, or already
have, said yes to one of these. They are wrong, it is
the family living in rural Alaska who depends upon this
resource for their very survival. There are very few
grocery stores, and even fewer jobs out in the rural
areas. No one questions the fact that their need is
greater. So then they turn around and try to hold your
attention with a little catch phrase, such as state's
rights, equality, individual rights. How can these
people espouse state's rights while failing to consider
the state's responsibilities. As the tribal governments
have already learned, you have to prove that you are
capable of handling increased responsibilities before you
are given more control. The current intentions of SJR 19
will only serve as proof that the state is not capable of
looking after its own people, and is only looking out for
wealthy special interests. On the other hand, some
people start screaming for individual rights and
equality. Do you remember when people used to be allowed
to smoke cigarettes and cigars on airplanes and in all of
the restaurants? When that was taken away, people were
using the same arguments. They lost, however, because by
exercising their rights, they were endangering the
welfare of others. That situation is remarkably
comparable to the issue before you today. Regardless of
today's outcome, I for one, would be more than happy to
give up my rights to hunt, if exercising that right will
give food to someone who needs it much more than I do.
In closing, I would simply state that the needs of the
many heavily outweigh the desires of the few.
Number 411
SENATOR HALFORD stated that one of the things the Legislature has
a problem with is the way the federal courts have defined the
existing system, i.e. the Lime Village case and the "for sale"
case. He asked Mr. Parker if he believed the subsistence resource
should be for sale in commercial quantities for cash. MR. PARKER
replied, "No, what we are talking about here today is subsistence,
not commercial interests." SENATOR HALFORD agreed with that
interpretation and felt that has to be dealt with in the federal
act.
SENATOR HALFORD stated the Lime Village case requires all other
uses be eliminated before subsistence use can be limited. He asked
Mr. Parker if that was an interpretation intended by the original
act. MR. PARKER replied, "As I understand it, yes." SENATOR
HALFORD explained the Babbitt case requires there to be a year
round season with no bag limit and no restrictions on subsistence
before any other uses can be allowed. MR. PARKER stated he does
not necessarily agree with that but believes subsistence needs
should be met prior to commercial or sport needs. SENATOR HALFORD
asked if language that allows the opportunity for subsistence needs
first, without preventing any other harvest, as long as a
reasonable opportunity to meet subsistence needs first exists,
would be acceptable to Mr. Parker. MR. PARKER replied, "I think
you are getting into a pretty gray area there, defining what the
subsistence needs are, but in theory, that is correct." SENATOR
HALFORD commented those are the two extremes the Legislature is
stuck with from the federal courts. Those two cases have defined
subsistence for us in a way that many of the original advocates did
not intend.
GARY MOORE, Planning Department Director for the Tanana Chiefs
Conference, testified in opposition to SJR 19 and made the
following comments:
SJR 19 is an endangerment to subsistence of which our
villages and first inhabitants of this land, the
aboriginal native people of Alaska, severely depend upon.
This argument has been repeated over and over by native
people to the federal and state governments, for several
generations. The native people's request to protect
subsistence over the last century appear to have fallen
on deaf ears. This is the case today with the
legislative majority currently in power. The subsistence
battle which is about to carry on into the next century
has eliminated any hope the state government would
finally do what is right for the villages of the state.
Since the days of the territorial Legislature, the state
has done nothing but consume the land, natural and
wildlife resources, and has pushed cultural languages and
traditions to the brink of extinction. The promises made
to native peoples in the past have either been broken or
ignored. Those in power today, and other sport hunting
groups, say they cannot be held accountable for what
their ancestors may have done or said in the past. The
outspoken voices of sportsmen say that we all should have
equal access and not discriminate based on race. The
equal access clause, as stated in the Alaska
Constitution, which native people did not participate in
drafting, will fail the test of time. As the state
continues to grow in population, we would see our hunting
and fishing seasons dwindled to but a few days and hours
under the equal access clause. With increased hunting
pressure by more and more people, we will see less of a
resource available to anyone. The sportsmen in this
state cry discrimination when, or if, any group has more
of an opportunity to harvest wildlife resources before
them. I say let them cry discrimination because their
argument is completely off track and will lead them
nowhere. The basis for their arguments center only on a
desire to hang more trophies on their walls, and has
absolutely nothing to do with the culture or sustaining
life. During the passage of ANSCA, Congress had full
intentions of protecting native peoples' subsistence uses
in Alaska. I used the term "native, not because it is
based on anything racial, I used the term only because
the relationship between the federal government and
native tribes is unique and based on Congress' historical
relationship with once sovereign political entities, the
native tribes of North America. Native tribes should not
be confused with minority groups that have never had any
government to government relationship, treaties or
agreements with the United States. In closing I will say
what faith and trust I once had in our state government
to do what is morally right for native people has all but
disappeared. You have shown us that you are incapable of
being objective. Members of our state legislative
majority seem only concerned with power, money, prestige,
and personal gain, and appear to be bulldozing a path to
get there regardless of the consequences. If you choose
to pass SJR 19 then I say we are better off with federal
management of Alaska's resources. Additionally, Alaska's
tribes should recommend to the Secretary of the Interior
that a tribal preference be incorporated in ANILCA so
that protection of subsistence uses by native people will
be guaranteed to the greatest extent possible under the
law. Native people are tired of defending themselves and
their culture against a hostile state government, and
special interest groups are intent on destroying all
native cultures. I say the days of native people being
forced to compromise their lives, cultures, and resources
are over. If we continue this destructive path we will
compromise ourselves right out of existence.
Number 331
EILEEN NEWMAN testified in opposition to SJR 19. She stated she
grew up in a large family, dependent on subsistence, in Rampart.
That is still the lifestyle of the majority of families in Rampart
today. She commented on the influx of urban hunters into Rampart
during her childhood and the decrease in the food supply. She
agreed with the argument that any person, regardless of race, has
the right to subsist if it is the only means of providing for
oneself. She questioned whether it is necessary to subsist, if the
amount of money spent on one's hunting equipment is enough to
purchase two cows. She asked committee members how they would feel
if she drove into their backyards and shot the animal they planned
to subsist on over the winter, so she could hang it on her wall.
She urged the committee to work in the direction of a
constitutional amendment.
Number 270
PATRICK MADROS, representing the Village of Nulato, testified in
opposition to SJR 19. He discussed how Alaska Natives were not
consulted when Seward bought Alaska from the Russians; they have
been discriminated against from the beginning. In order for state
management to work, the state will have to determine the sustained
yield and listen when subsistence users say the way the state is
doing business with the fishing industry is hurting them.
BENEDICT JONES, representing the Koyukuk Village Council, stated
the Russians sold native land but not the resources, and that is
what subsistence users are trying to protect. He stated if those
resources are not protected now, there will be no food for his
grandchildren to eat. He commented on the different types of food
his people are used to eating and how they cannot adapt to eating
beef.
ANDREW JIMMIE, representing the village of Minto, testified in
opposition to SJR 19. He stated he does not earn $100,000 per year
and receives no food stamps. If SJR 19 passes, it will allow more
hunters to come into the area around Minto, and the impact on the
resources will create serious problems for local residents. He was
born and raised in Minto, and all of his meals were obtained
through subsistence. It is critical that those resources be
protected.
Number 272
ALICE CARROLL, representing the village of Circle, testified. She
was raised in a fish camp, living mostly off of the land. It is
difficult to continue to live a subsistence lifestyle in the
village.
ORVILLE HUNTINGTON of Huslia made the following comments. SJR 19
uses the same strategy that was used to try to keep natives from
the state of Alaska out of the Statehood Act. If not for a few
honorable non-native people, fighting for native sovereign rights
during statehood, SJR 19 would never have come up before the
Legislature. SJR 19 is disrespectful to native elders and their
families in rural Alaska, who rely on fish and wildlife resources.
The federal government regulates, they do not seek title to land
and resources. SJR 19 will give a strong economic advantage to
rich urban sportsmen. Rural Alaskans cannot afford to compete with
them. Every urban person has the right to live in a rural area of
Alaska. Let them do so and see how difficult it is to live on
limited fish and wildlife resources. Strong native leaders are
fighting for the only leverage they have to protect fish and
wildlife resources: native sovereignty on native land. State
jurisdiction over native lands will soon be a non-factor, because
native people will have jurisdiction over their own land.
TAPE 95-32, SIDE A
Number 001
MIKE WALLERI, Fairbanks, said this resolution is nothing more than
"federal bashing" and he is proud of the United States government.
Our system of federalism is designed to do a couple of things to
provide balance. When the states refuse to live up to their
obligations, the federal government will step in to live up to its
obligations. He said the State of Alaska has failed to deal with
the subsistence issue; it has failed to meet the subsistence needs
in rural Alaska in a practical fashion.
MR. WALLERI said he thought the Babbitt case held that customary
and traditional uses can only be limited if you eliminate other
uses. It didn't state that rural people are totally unregulated.
Number 83
SENATOR HALFORD asked if the Babbitt case said that customary and
traditional uses could not be regulated until all other uses were
essentially eliminated. MR. WALLERI replied that case basically
held that you can't stop people who have been doing something for
centuries unless you stop other people from interfering with that.
They are not totally unregulated.
He said one of the premier welfare reform programs has been
operated by Tanana Chiefs Conference. In the depression, when the
welfare system began, it was required to be instituted because the
states failed in their responsibility to feed people. He has some
concerns about trusting the state government, if the federal
government steps back, when there has been a failure to deal with
issues.
SENATOR LEMAN said he didn't think it was the state's
responsibility to provide welfare, but it's our responsibility as
people and he congratulated the Tanana Chiefs Council for their
efforts to provide help.
Number 140
SATIVA QUIN, Staff Anthropologist for Tanana Chiefs, opposed SJR 19
and HJR 33. She said that the truly disadvantaged hunter is the
one who has to travel hundreds of miles and hunt on unfamiliar
territory. The people who head out from urban areas to go hunting
will not have their life styles severely impacted by lack of access
to particular moose the way a person from the area of the moose
would be impacted. If rural preference did not exist, they would
be at a disadvantage, because they do not have the means to travel
a long distance to go hunting the way urban dwellers do.
KALUPSAK said that the previous speakers might be part of an
international Supreme Court case. He said he had terminated his
association with Doyon. He said all of this is a bunch of hocus
pocus. He thought it was about time the State of Alaska took care
of the native people.
Number 293
MELINDA CHASE, Fairbanks resident, opposed SJR 19 saying she spoke
on behalf of herself and Anvik. She said that rural Alaska does
not have the same resources as urban people. She said they have
their hunting and fishing with which to provide for their families
and this gives them a sense of pride. She said there is no
equality in this process; it is a one way dialogue.
SENATOR LEMAN said he would love to have a unlimited dialogue on
this issue, but the legislature has just a limited amount of time
in which to make it as fair a process as possible.
Number 374
OSCAR FRANK, Fairbanks, said he grew up in Yakutat and he wanted to
continue his traditional way of life.
WILLIAM WALTERS said this is not a state's right issue, it is a
federal issue. He said the U.S. Constitution specifically gives
Congress the responsibility to take care of people it has displaced
or taken over. The government has taken a trust responsibility and
dealt with it through a rural subsistence preference. He has not,
to this date, heard of an adequate, responsible substitute for that
way of dealing with aboriginal rights that have been extinguished.
SENATOR HALFORD asked how he would describe ANCSA. MR. WALTERS
replied that it was a land claims settlement act. He said often
when a conquering power takes over another community, the rights of
that community are not specified. It's not clear how to settle
that. SENATOR HALFORD said he agreed and he also thought, after
reading the preamble, that it was a termination act that was later
changed in terms of its further amendment. He thought it was made
indian law substantially after. MR. WALTERS didn't agree. He said
Congress intended to take care of native communities's subsistence
needs. Doing away with the subsistence priority is a violation of
the trust.
MR. WALTERS said if there is a problem with the way Congress has
dealt with that priority, Congress could fix the problem.
Number 506
ROBERT SILAS, Galena, opposed SJR 19, because it focuses on the
emotional issue of state's rights rather than the practical issue
of meeting the needs of Alaska's people. He asked how else the
native people would be guaranteed their subsistence way of life.
He had a problem with first resolve in SJR 19. He said if ANILCA
is a failure, and a deal is a deal, then we should go back to
native preference which is part of the statehood compact.
He said the resolution was misleading and misdirected.
The teleconference transmission was broken at this point for a few
minutes and Senator Leman's comments were inaudible.
TAPE 95-32, SIDE B
Number 563
MR. SILAS said that the committee was holding only three meetings
on this issue and at the first two meetings the teleconference
people can only listen.
SENATOR HALFORD said there were a lot of disagreements and we all
have the capacity to disagree without being disagreeable.
SENATOR LINCOLN asked if he thought this resolution would be
detrimental to the subsistence lifestyle of the rural communities
and do you see this resolution as a subsistence resolution. MR.
SILAS said he thought it was very difficult for rural communities
and that it did impact the subsistence lifestyle.
Number 533
HUGH DOOGAN supported SJR 19. He thought it got the rights of all
Alaskans back in Alaska's hands and not the federal government. He
said he grew up in the territorial days and he knows what the BIA
did to the native people which was wrong. He knows what the
federal government did in other areas to the Alaskan people as a
whole. He said this resolution stood up for all people in the
State of Alaska.
PAUL GREGORY, Bethel resident, said ANILCA is the only federal
preference legal force that protects subsistence and their cultural
lifestyle. State law has no effective protection at all for native
communities. Title 7 has to be implemented by federal courts and
agencies whether the state complies with it or not. He didn't know
how many times ANILCA was amended, but it must be resolved by
Alaskans.
Number 463
STANTON KATCHETAG, Unalakleet, said that ANILCA is the only
protection subsistence users have. Opening ANILCA would weaken
those protections. Native people in rural communities account for
less than 4% of subsistence uses statewide. Most rural communities
do not support the opening of ANILCA.
Number 417
JAMES NAGEAK said he grew up in villages, but is a professor of the
Yupik language at the University. He said at one point in his
childhood he remembers the federal government telling the
grandfather of his village that he couldn't hunt sheep any more,
because that land was going to be the Arctic National Wildlife
Refuge. When a family is hungry, hunger knows no law. He wanted
rural preference and for people to have more say in the law.
STANLEY NED, Fairbanks, opposed SJR 19.
JONATHAN SOLOMON, Ruralcap, said he grew up under federal
jurisdiction on fish and game and they had more freedom then than
they do now under state jurisdiction. When statehood was an issue,
he voted against it. He opposed SJR 19, because it is the only
protection native people have today.
MYRA OLSEN, Egegik, said she is both a commercial fisherman and a
subsistence user and is against SJR 19. Amending ANILCA would be
detrimental to people in rural communities, and since this is so,
people in rural communities should have a more fair and just
opportunity to comment on the ramifications of this action.
SENATOR HALFORD asked what happens to limited entry if the state
loses the Katie John case and we have federal court cases saying
you can sell commercially under customary trade up to $75,000 in
the aggregate of value. He asked didn't that mean that someone
without a permit could move to a coastal community and simply fish
under subsistence. MS. OLSEN said it was a serious problem, and
she felt that the State of Alaska was not in compliance and it's
not the native's fault for wanting to use their resources. The
state can and should get into compliance with Title 8 of ANILCA.
SENATOR HALFORD said he wished the federal court's definition of
what's legal under customary trade could be changed, but even if we
passed a constitutional amendment to come into compliance with
ANILCA, that definition would destroy limited entry unless it's
changed.
Number 254
SHIRLEY LEE opposed SJR 19. She said that the whole issue of
efforts on fish and game has never been fully resolved. Whether
this resolution is a state interest perspective or a subsistence
bill, they are intertied. She thought it was a state's rights
resolution, but in turn, how the state manages those resources will
definitely affect tribal, aboriginal rights. Subsistence is the
heart of the Alaska native culture.
DELBERT REXFORD, Special Assistant to the mayor of the North Slope
Borough, said he serves on the Subsistence Resource Commission of
the Gates of the Arctic National Park. He said they are dealing
with Title 8 of ANILCA and are in the efforts of trying to
negotiate a cooperative agreement so they can manage their own
resources.
He said that Congress, in its wisdom, saw that Alaska was unique -
geographically and ethnically - and that it needed special
consideration. Congress enacted ANILCA to protect and provide
rural preference. He urged continued support of ANILCA.
Number 75
SENATOR LINCOLN asked him if he thought this was a subsistence bill
and why. MR. REXFORD apologized saying that he is subsistence
oriented, but this is in many ways a subsistence bill, because of
the rural preference. He said the only thing they have to fall
back on in small communities is having rural preference.
TAPE 95-33, SIDE A
Number 001
LEE TITUS, Chief of the Village of Northway, opposed SJR 19. He
said that everyone has been asking for equal rights and access to
the resources in the state without regard to the indigenous people
who live in the rural areas. The current system is not adequate to
solve these problems. The majority of the decisions made in Juneau
are made by representatives and senators from either Fairbanks,
Anchorage, or Juneau who live in an urban area. The majority of
lawmakers don't know anything about how to make a living in the
rural areas. He pointed out that the rural areas hadn't been
provided public services the same as cities. He said the majority
of rural communities in the state don't have adequate water and
sanitation facilities in their community.
Number 108
JAMIE COX said she married a "lower 48 American Indian" and lives
in Alaska on the Forty Mile River. She thought that ANILCA was
illegal; it is against both the state and federal constitution.
She thanked the legislature for taking up the issue of state's
rights. She said she also has been forced to live a different
lifestyle than what she wanted to live. She said she can't go and
live in rural areas like she would prefer.
ANILCA does not protect subsistence users, MS. COX said. It
unjustly protects little users whether they are subsistence users
or not. She has five children and she would not deprive them of
the lessons that being responsible for themselves by learning how
to hunt and prepare caribou brings. She supported subsistence, but
she didn't support rural priority. She has a great deal of respect
for the native culture, but she doesn't know why they have to claim
they have to have special rights to preserve their culture makes no
sense to her.
MS. COX said if the rural native folks truly want sovereignty, they
need to try to work things out amongst themselves and with the rest
of us. Sovereignty means being independent and being responsible
for yourself. She asked how many people in villages would be
willing to give up BIA housing and how many people who claim a
subsistence lifestyle have accepted food stamps in the past. She
thought this fact lost them credibility.
She said you don't have to be non-white to be forced into a
lifestyle you don't want to live. She advised that before you
divide people, you should restrict the commercial uses and the non-
resident fishing and hunting, including military.
PAUL MAYO, Ahtna shareholder, opposed SJR 19. He said ANILCA does
not need to be amended. Katie John and the Ahtna people have had
to fight since the Russians for the ability to feed their children.
He knows many people who rely on subsistence.
Number 247
LOUISE MCMANUS, Interior Airboat Association, said she had lived in
Fairbanks for 41 years. They view the subsistence provisions of
ANILCA, in general, as illegitimate and unconstitutional. It seems
this is a case of federal regulatory agencies abusing the intent of
Congress and violating the Tenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution
and violating the Statehood Compact. This is a straight forward
state's rights issue, one of many areas in which an
unconstitutionally bloated federal government is trampling the
local self government, especially in Alaska. She pointed out that
the whole subsistence controversy between Alaskans arises only
because of temporary shortages of some species of fish and game in
some areas. These shortages are artificially maintained by
outsiders who will not let us manage our own game appropriately.
Alaskans need to work their problems out amongst themselves and
move into the future as one people, she concluded.
Number 271
SENATOR LINCOLN asked how she proposed that they work together
towards a consensus on this issue. MS. MCMANUS responded that it
would be a tough row to hoe and it would take a lot more education.
She did not think they would have to lose the native culture to
take advantage of the white man's ways.
AMANDA ALTON opposed SJR 19. She has never lived in a rural area,
but she has lived in Alaska for 19 years and is concerned about
issues concerning the state and its people. While equal rights of
all Alaskans to the state's fish and game may seem ideal, our
constitution disregards the fact that for many native people
subsistence is not only economic need, but a vital aspect of the
native culture and way of life.
SENATOR LEMAN asked if she had read the resolution and if she read
the denial of all those rights into the resolution. She responded
that ANILCA did protect the subsistence rights of natives.
KARL EKLUND said he is not a hunter nor is he from the home of
hunters. His class has done fairly extensive research on the
subsistence issue and he respected the idea of trying to regain
management of our lands, but he also thought that would be putting
rural preference in jeopardy. He thought it was easy for people in
urban areas to believe that natives do not truly rely on
subsistence. We should not be deceived; there is a need to protect
the resources and to have the assurance that they will be
accessible to the native people and their subsistence lifestyle.
Everyone wants the state to be united in thought and action, but we
have to give room to differences in governments and lifestyles.
There is no need to pressure these people into our way of life by
making everyone the same which is often called equality.
Number 422
JOE STRUNKA, Fairbanks resident, supported SJR 19 and equality. He
asked them to support the Alaska Constitution as it is presently
written. He said he has lived off the land and knows how hard that
is. He is now retired and living off of a fixed income and he
wished he had 44 million acres tax free as the regional
corporations have to do their subsistence hunting on. He thought
that was being overlooked. He thought there would be a way to
continue the native life style by accessing those 44 million acres
which are posted as private lands.
DON GARRET supported SJR 19. In southern Minnesota many of his
grandmother's people were killed when Chief Black Eagle declared
war on the whites when they tried to run over their reservation.
They were then moved to reservations in North Dakota, South Dakota,
and Montana.
MR. GARRET said that the Shoshoni Indians realized they had to
adapt to white man's ways if they wanted to survive and related
some personal stories that he knew supporting this. He urged rural
Alaskans to get beyond subsistence and go into the future with
moose ranching, farming, village industries, tourism, or with
anything that can possibly be done to find a better life style. It
can be done without destroying the culture of the people.
People need to move beyond subsistence and into the 21st century.
It is probably the most divisive unAmerican act that came out of
the American Congress. Under Article 1, Section 10 of the U.S.
Constitution the State of Alaska is clearly and unmistakably
prohibited from participating in the subsistence provision of
ANILCA. He thought they needed to give consideration to the grants
for welfare, food stamps, and the state and federal money that goes
to rural Alaskans. He reminded them, under the Equal Footing
amendment, no other state has ever been treated the way Alaska's
been treated. Fifteen years of violation of law should come to an
end. ANILCA needs to be changed; equal rights need to be given to
all people.
DAVE LAZEY said he was asked to speak by the chief of Stevens
Village in opposition to SJR 19. His position is that human rights
are more important than state's rights and this bill does affect
subsistence for which there needs to be federal protection.
TAPE 95-33, SIDE B
Number 570
MR. LAZEY said that the rights of indigenous people to continue to
make a living on their traditional lands is one of those human
rights. That's what subsistence is all about. He asked if people
are really trying to reduce federal control in Alaska, why are they
opposing village control, because that seems to be one way federal
control could be diminished.
MARJORIE MAYO, Fairbanks, said she had been living there for the
past 35 years. She said people accept food stamps not only in the
villages, but in the cities. It happens all over. Some people do
need that kind of help and they do receive it. Food stamps are not
entirely free, because they have to be bought. She said the people
in the villages are worried about food and they have every reason
to worry.
DONALD STERN said he voted against statehood, because the federal
government would pass laws that would separate urban/rural and
native/white, because dividing Alaska's people is the only way it
can conquer and control Alaska. Now the federal government does
control over 60% of Alaska. This one issue does the whole thing.
Our state constitution guarantees equal rights and equal
opportunity. He favors subsistence, but he is against losing his
subsistence rights guaranteed under the state's constitution just
because he lives in a rural setting. The rural preference in
Alaska is unconstitutional; it's against the statehood act that he
voted for. He would like to change ANILCA and not the statehood
act, so he supported SJR 19.
Number 471
MARY NORDALE, Birch, Horton, Bittner, and Cherot, represented the
Alaska Miners Association. They support SJR 19, not because they
view it as a subsistence issue, but because it is very important
for a definition of public lands to be incorporated into federal
law which will constrain the Department of Interior and other
federal agencies from assuming land management authority over lands
that don't belong to the federal government. This is not just an
ANILCA problem, it's a problem that is evidenced by the actions of
the Department of the Interior with respect, for one example, by
controlling use of rights of way across public lands.
The Alaska Miners Association is concerned that the Department of
Interior would assume control over private lands, as well,
including native corporation lands.
MS. NORDALE stated she is disheartened by the acrimony on this
issue which she thought disguised the real issue of whether or not
the federal government will control all lands in Alaska.
SENATOR LINCOLN said she had difficulty seeing that this was not a
subsistence issue when the sponsor's statement talks about the
major ANILCA conflicts being the basis for the resolution.
MS. NORDALE responded that there was more to ANILCA than the
subsistence provision. She didn't think we should exercise
dominion over these lands in pursuit of one single objective. She
said subsistence can be solved, but it has to be dealt with by
itself, instead of all the other peripheral issues, too.
SENATOR LINCOLN said this is how they are trying to solve the issue
of subsistence. Perhaps the next step is how do we define
subsistence.
MS. NORDALE urged them to consider seriously that the federal
government appears to want to assume land management control over
state and other lands through this type of issue. There are other
issues that are being used, she added.
WARREN MATUMEAK said we are all Alaskans and Alaska is so big that
it has different groups of people. He is an elder from Barrow and
subsistence for him is a way of life which includes native food
which they cannot go without. He gave an example of using whale
blubber to cook frozen food. If you don't eat this, then you are
a completely different Alaskan than he is. He concluded saying
that we all share equal amounts of Alaska Permanent Fund dividend
checks which originated from their subsistence hunting lands.
ROXANNE FRANK, Fairbanks resident, opposed SJR 19. The reason is
because in 1971 a road was built into the village of Minto and when
moose hunting season opened in September, 500 cars arrived. They
had to deal with people coming in at all hours of the night, waking
up to gun shots that were like World War II. During that year the
moose population declined drastically and food was taken away from
them for that winter. There weren't enough moose for the village
of Minto. She explained that the other food they have to get from
Anchorage or Fairbanks is very expensive. She concluded saying
that rural preference is important to rural areas.
HAROLD GILLAM said he has spent 65 years in Fairbanks and thought
that qualified him as an elder. He was a member of the citizens
advisory to the state/federal land use commission and he has read
almost all of the management plans the federal government has put
out for management on federal lands and he emphasized that they are
management plans for disaster. There is no allowance to exercise
any management alternatives on federal lands and you cannot satisfy
the needs of a growing population under federal management. He
supported SJR 19, but said it was completely unnecessary if a
competent judge reviewed ANILCA. ANILCA very clearly defines
public lands in three places and goes on to say that it doesn't
amend the State Constitution.
All the testimony today, he said, has been interesting, but not to
the point of the resolution. He thought subsistence was a device
hatched in Washington, D.C. to divide the Alaskan people and it is
succeeding. He did not think you could give special privilege to
one segment of the population without causing a lot of problems.
If we utilize proper management, we wouldn't have a subsistence
issue - there wouldn't be a game shortage. MR. GILLAM said we need
to dispel the notion that it is easy for game to live in Alaska.
Number 242
SENATOR LINCOLN pointed out phrases in the resolution like,
"authority over fish and wildlife," "fisheries management,"
"subsistence priority on federal public lands," and "state fish and
wildlife management on state private lands and water in Alaska"
that make this resolution sound like it does deal with subsistence.
MR. GILLAM replied that the federal government just doesn't have a
good record of game or fish management.
SENATOR HALFORD commented, regarding limited entry, that our
Constitution says, "subject to the preference among beneficial
uses." He thought we had an unconstitutional classification of
users, and subsistence preference for uses could have been
accomplished under our constitution without a problem, if the
tribal government had done it that way, instead of an
unconstitutional classification of people.
Number 174
PAT FOX said she was a member of a tribe in the lower 48 states and
she strongly opposed SJR 19. She said that federal management of
fish and game includes giving tribes the right to manage their own
fish and wildlife which is something the state didn't give them.
SHIRLEY SAGER said she was asked to read testimony by Mary Bishop
in support of SJR 19. Ms. Bishop is a 34-year resident of the
interior of Alaska. She didn't think the resolution asked for any
major amendments to ANILCA being simply a technical amendment
asking Congress to clarify what it passed in the first place.
Public lands are defined in ANILCA; they are not defined as having
jurisdiction over state lands and waters. The legislative record
of ANILCA makes it clear that the federal government under ANILCA
can set seasons and bag limits in a very limited fashion. It is
not a right on private or state lands and waters. Some judges have
filled in some gaps saying that the federal government can take
over management of fish and game in these areas.
MS. SAGER pointed out that the governor also opposes federal
management of fish and game.
Number 86
ROBERT DROZDA said he has listened to people from a majority race
talk about equality. These people have access to more means and
have a different definition of quality of life. When he has
traveled in rural Alaska and asked people what he could bring as
gifts to them, they have always asked for food, like fresh fruit
and vegetables. Their options for food in the villages are so
minimal that he needs to bring all the food that he chooses to eat,
if they do not feed him. However, he has had lots of meals in the
villages.
MR. DROZDA said he opposed SJR 19 and thought a better way to go
was to amend our constitution.
TAPE 34-5, SIDE A
Number 001
MICHAEL DUBOWSKI said we do not need federal oversight and that
ANILCA pits one culture against another. If it's not changed, we
will be having the same types of meetings like this trying to
figure a way out.
Number 53
JACK FERGUSON, Fairbanks, said we need federal oversight to serve
as a check and balance for the excesses that go on in one state or
another. If it were not for federal oversight, black people would
not be able to vote in the south, indians wouldn't be able to
inherit in the southeast, and eventually white people here would
have everything, and the indians would starve. He thought comparing
rural and urban hunters was a farce, because urban hunters have
many more options for income than rural hunters. They can make
more money in a month than most rural people can make in a year.
AL JONES, Fairbanks resident, supported SJR 19. He thought rights
to game should be based on need and not on zip code. ANILCA is
flawed and designation of priority for rural resident is
unconstitutional and the State Supreme Court says so.
VERNON MILLER requested a letter from each of them explaining how
the 14th Amendment can allow Puerto Rico to vote not once, but
twice, on the United Nations Resolution that orders it done in a
timely manner by the United States Government, when the population
of Alaska was more on a equal footing (half Native and half Non-
Native). At this late date the population is 7 to 1 Non-Native to
Native. It's almost a laughing matter. He said there is no
tradition under any law that allows taking of a person's land base.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|