Legislature(1997 - 1998)
03/30/1998 02:10 PM House JUD
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HOUSE JUDICIARY STANDING COMMITTEE
March 30, 1998
2:10 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Joe Green, Chairman
Representative Brian Porter
Representative Norman Rokeberg
Representative Jeannette James
Representative Eric Croft
Representative Ethan Berkowitz
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Con Bunde, Vice Chairman
OTHER HOUSE MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative William K. (Bill) Williams
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HOUSE BILL NO. 406
"An Act relating to subsistence uses of fish and game."
- HEARD AND HELD
(* First public hearing)
PREVIOUS ACTION
BILL: HB 406
SHORT TITLE: SUBSISTENCE USES OF FISH AND GAME
SPONSOR(S): RESOURCES
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
2/12/98 2312 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
2/12/98 2312 (H) RESOURCES, JUDICIARY, FINANCE
2/17/98 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 124
2/17/98 (H) MINUTE(RES)
2/21/98 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 124
2/21/98 (H) MINUTE(RES)
2/24/98 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 124
2/24/98 (H) MINUTE(RES)
2/27/98 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
2/27/98 (H) MINUTE(JUD)
2/28/98 (H) RES AT 9:00 AM CAPITOL 124
2/28/98 (H) MINUTE(RES)
3/03/98 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 124
3/03/98 (H) MINUTE(RES)
3/04/98 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
3/04/98 (H) MINUTE(JUD)
3/05/98 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 124
3/05/98 (H) MINUTE(RES)
3/06/98 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
3/06/98 (H) MINUTE(JUD)
3/06/98 2538 (H) RES RPT CS(RES)NT 3DP 1DNP 1NR 3AM
3/06/98 2539 (H) DP: DYSON, GREEN, OGAN; DNP: JOULE;
3/06/98 2539 (H) NR: BARNES; AM: MASEK, WILLIAMS,
HUDSON
3/06/98 2539 (H) 2 ZERO FISCAL NOTES (F&G, LAW)
3/06/98 2539 (H) REFERRED TO JUDICIARY
3/09/98 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
3/09/98 (H) MINUTE(JUD)
3/11/98 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
3/11/98 (H) MINUTE(JUD)
3/18/98 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
3/18/98 (H) MINUTE(JUD)
3/20/98 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
3/20/98 (H) MINUTE(JUD)
3/23/98 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
3/23/98 (H) MINUTE(JUD) (MTG CANCELLED)
3/25/98 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
3/25/98 (H) MINUTE(JUD)
3/27/98 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
3/27/98 (H) MINUTE(JUD)
3/28/98 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
3/28/98 (H) MINUTE(JUD)
3/30/98 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
WITNESS REGISTER
MARY C. PETE, Director
Division of Subsistence
Alaska Department of Fish and Game
P.O. Box 25526
Juneau, Alaska 99802-5526
Telephone: (907) 465-4147
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 406, Version X; addressed
criteria and answered questions.
KEVIN DELANEY, Director
Division of Sport Fish
Alaska Department of Fish and Game
333 Raspberry Road
Anchorage, Alaska 99518-1579
Telephone: (907) 267-2224
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 406, Version X; addressed
implementation and answered questions.
CLEM TILLION
P.O. Box 6409
Halibut Cove, Alaska 99603-6409
Telephone: (Not provided)
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in HB 406, discussed the
consequences of federal takeover and
management
of fish and game.
JIM SAMPSON, Member
Alaskans Together
1000 Bennett Road
Fairbanks, Alaska 99712
Telephone: (Not provided)
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 406; urged the state retain
management of Alaska resources.
CARL MARRS, President/Chief Executive Officer
Cook Inlet Region, Incorporated;
Member, Alaskans Together
2525 "C" Street
Anchorage, Alaska 99503
Telephone: (907) 274-8638
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 406; urged the state retain
management of Alaska resources.
DEAN PADDOCK
P.O. Box 20312
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Telephone: (907) 463-4970
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 406; urged the state retain
management of Alaska resources.
MARLENE ZUBOFF, Executive Director
Angoon Community Association
Box 84
Angoon, Alaska 99820
Telephone: (907) 788-3411
POSITION STATEMENT: Objected to HB 406, Version X.
KEVIN SWEENEY
Alaska Federation of Natives
1577 C Street
Suite 300
Anchorage, Alaska 99501
Telephone: (Not provided)
POSITION STATEMENT: Requested adequate notice and time for
comments to be heard.
LYDIA GEORGE
P.O. BOX 132
Angoon, Alaska 99820
Telephone: (907) 788-3232
POSITION STATEMENT: Indicated that she did not want Angoon to be
taken off the subsistence list.
MAXINE THOMPSON, Mayor-elect
City of Angoon
P.O. Box 189
Angoon, Alaska 99820
Telephone: (907) 788-3653
POSITION STATEMENT: Discussed the situation in Angoon and
requested more time on this matter.
GREGORY BROWN
5010 N. Douglas Highway
Number 19
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Telephone: (907) 586-2836
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 406.
DARIO NOTTI
P.O. Box 2175
Bethel, Alaska 99550-2175
Telephone: (907) 543-3072
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 406.
LOREN CROXTON
P.O. Box 1410
Petersburg, Alaska 99833-1410
Telephone: (907) 772-3622
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 406 and offered suggestions.
ROBERT HALL, Member
Houston Chamber of Commerce
(Not provided.)
Houston, Alaska
Telephone: (907) 892-6555
POSITION STATEMENT: Suggested that the provision providing a
preference for Alaskans over other users be
placed back in Version X.
TED HAMILTON
(Not provided.)
Emmonak, Alaska 99581
Telephone: (Not provided.)
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 406.
KNOWLAND SILAS
(Not provided.)
Minto, Alaska 99758
Telephone: (907) 748-7112
POSITION STATEMENT: Discussed subsistence.
MIKE JACKSON
P.O. Box 163
Kake, Alaska
Telephone: (907) 785-4177
POSITION STATEMENT: Discussed the criteria in HB 406.
DALE BONDURANT
HC 1 Box 1197
Soldotna, Alaska 99669
Telephone: (907) 262-0818
POSITION STATEMENT: Discussed equal protection and other
constitutional concerns.
THEO MATTHEWS, President
United Fisherman of Alaska(UFA)
Chair, Subsistence Committee of UFA
P.O. Box 389
Kenai, Alaska 99611
Telephone: (907) 283-3600
POSITION STATEMENT: Discussed concerns with HB 406, Version X.
TOM LAKOSH
P.O. Box 100648
Anchorage, Alaska 99510
Telephone: (907) 563-7380
POSITION STATEMENT: Discussed equal protection and access.
MARY BISHOP
1555 Glens Grind
Fairbanks, Alaska 99709
Telephone: (907) 455-6151
POSITION STATEMENT: Recommended clarity with the language.
DICK BISHOP
1555 Glens Grind
Fairbanks, Alaska 99709
Telephone: (907) 455-6151
POSITION STATEMENT: Discussed equal protection and common use.
DONALD WESTLUND
P.O. Box 871
Ketchikan, Alaska 99901
Telephone: (907) 255-9319
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 406.
BEN HASTINGS
P.O. Box 8423
Ketchikan, Alaska 99901
Telephone: (907) 225-5014
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 406.
STAN BLOOM
303 Bentley Drive
Fairbanks, Alaska 99701
Telephone: (907) 452-5068
POSITION STATEMENT: Stated that the Alaska State Constitution
should not be changed, ANILCA is unfair.
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 98-49, SIDE A
Number 0001
CHAIRMAN JOE GREEN called the House Judiciary Standing Committee
meeting to order at 2:10 p.m. Members present at the call to order
were Representatives Green, Porter, Rokeberg and Berkowitz.
Representatives Croft and James arrived at 2:12 p.m. and 2:20 p.m.,
respectively.
HB 406 - SUBSISTENCE USES OF FISH AND GAME
CHAIRMAN GREEN again brought before the committee HB 406, "An Act
relating to subsistence uses of fish and game." [Due to technical
difficulties, approximately 30 seconds elapsed before the taping
began.]
REPRESENTATIVE BRIAN PORTER expressed the intention that
subsistence taking will be as close as possible to the way it was
"before it got broke," and that kind of a process will be available
at all times. Subsistence only starts to get selective when a
shortage exists, and then the bill appropriately ratchets the
taking down.
CHAIRMAN GREEN concurred, referring to testimony at the previous
meeting about ratcheting down by regulation and the protection of
subsistence.
Number 0160
MARY C. PETE, Director, Division of Subsistence, Alaska Department
of Fish and Game (ADF&G), came forward to testify on Version X [0-
LS1573\X, Utermohle, 3/27/98], saying she would primarily address
criteria and Mr. Delaney would address implementation.
MS. PETE told members Section .020(b) contains new criteria to
identify nonsubsistence areas, such as the presence of a road or
the Alaska Marine Highway. There are two income criteria and one
unemployment criterion, plus the presence of jet air service.
However, there is no strict definition of a nonsubsistence area,
except that it is a cash-based economy plus a list of 14
characteristics that are in current law. These are not reliable
indicators in determining that subsistence is the foundation of a
community's economy. Whether these are present or absent is
generally beside the point in that subsistence carries on in rural
communities.
MS. PETE provided examples. Using these criteria, communities such
as Angoon or Hoonah, where subsistence production is high, would be
disqualified because of being on the Alaska Marine Highway system.
Similarly disqualified for having jet service would be communities
such as Kotzebue, Iliamna, Saint Marys, Minto, Dot Lake or
Northway. Establishing who qualifies, and under what regulations,
becomes difficult for areas or communities in nonsubsistence areas
that are near subsistence use areas or communities with high
production. For example, within five to fifteen miles of Bethel
are many communities heavily dependent on subsistence uses. The
question is whether the use area of Bethel residents would be
rendered nonsubsistence, or whether Bethel residents would be
disqualified from being subsistence users. Under this bill, it is
unclear. Ms. Pete noted that there are overlapping use areas even
within the municipality of Bethel. Would Napaskiak residents, for
example, be allowed to hunt and fish under subsistence regulations,
but not Bethel residents?
MS. PETE told members the use of annual median household income is
an unreliable measure of dependence on subsistence. "I think I
mentioned to this committee before that there is no income level at
which subsistence activities stop for a household," she stated.
"And in fact, high-producing households tend to be those that have
some level of income to underwrite their activities, and they
generally are higher producers because they share their outputs
with households that can't be as active. Using the federal census
arbitrarily freezes the picture as well. A community is in or out
depending on what the community has experienced ... that year of
the census. Short-term increases in income from sporadic rural
employment opportunities such as construction projects or
firefighting may increase incomes temporarily, but subsistence
hunting and fishing continues throughout the ups and downs of these
income levels."
MS. PETE said the use of unemployment rate data from federal
statistics is a real problem, especially in small rural
communities, because they are basically measuring people who are
actively looking for jobs. "And if there are no jobs to be had,
the people not looking for jobs aren't even counted in the
unemployment statistics," she noted. "So, even if they're high,
they probably should be doubled, easily, because there are people
who don't look for jobs; they consider their subsistence activities
to be their job. And since it isn't regular employment, they
wouldn't be counted anyway."
MS. PETE next addressed the use of jet aircraft, saying it is not
a reliable indicator of a community's economy. There are other
transportation services, such as helicopter or turboprops, that
seem arbitrary. In addition, some communities may receive jet
service for only parts of the year. In that case, are they in or
out?
MS. PETE referred to the first 13 criteria, then suggested the 14th
is whatever the legislature finds relevant. She told members that
if the legislature wishes, as a public policy matter, to exclude
particular areas or communities from subsistence eligibility, it
should either use those now in statute, simply identify communities
by name, or provide guidance to the boards to identify areas. She
cited as an example in the task force package, which uses "rural"
and gives guidance to the boards to determine what is rural and
nonrural.
Number 0568
MS. PETE next addressed Section .030. Representative Porter had
noted at the beginning that regardless of how this is drafted,
there will be subsistence regulations at the same time that an area
is determined to be providing a reasonable opportunity under
nonsubsistence regulations. Ms. Pete stated, "I guess that
generates a lot of questions in my mind still, in part because
there doesn't seem to be a requirement that subsistence regulations
- or nonsubsistence regulations, for that matter, be consistent
with customary and traditional uses." Due to that requirement,
there can be more liberal bag limits or different methods and means
for the same population. It is unclear how that would work.
MS. PETE noted that the bill allows the board to find a substitute
for providing a reasonable subsistence opportunity, and it seems to
cross fish and game. For example, if there isn't reasonable
opportunity for moose, perhaps they can cross a board's
jurisdiction and say that the Board of Fisheries can then provide
more opportunity for pink salmon. It is unclear how that would
work. Ms. Pete suggested the simplest "fix" would be for HB 406 to
say the board must provide a reasonable opportunity for subsistence
under subsistence regulations, even at a level of abundance where
other uses are not restricted.
MS. PETE next advised members that the bill provides no systematic
way for the boards to ensure that in times of diminishing
abundance, other uses are restricted while protecting the
reasonable opportunity for subsistence.
Number 0730
MS. PETE referred to Section .260, regarding the local and regional
advisory councils. The regional committees seem to be an attempt
to accommodate ANILCA requirements for regional subsistence
advisory councils. However, the federal regional subsistence
councils currently address subsistence issues only. This bill
provides that regional committees would address all fish and game
uses and have broad membership. Ms. Pete said it seems to be
another tier of advisory committees, without allowing a forum or
focus on subsistence issues that could impact other uses, and vice
versa. She said ANILCA requires that state or federal boards adopt
recommendations by the regional councils, unless there are
compelling reasons not to do so. This doesn't provide a similar
requirement that the boards defer to regional councils that have a
consensus or a recommendation to the boards. "This would be a
problem with ANILCA compliance," she concluded.
Number 0829
CHAIRMAN GREEN noted the intent that the ratcheting down would
actually reference ADF&G regulations; therefore, the language must
be modified to do so. He explained, "But to try and get the
methods that you use throughout the state through your regulations
would be an onerous task to put in here. So, what we're saying is
that to accomplish many of the things that you discussed ... in
your testimony would in fact be handled by regulation."
CHAIRMAN GREEN next referred to Ms. Pete's discussion of delegation
of authority to the regional board and stated, "You were right in
the fact that we're trying to take as much as we felt was
reasonable from ANILCA, so that there wouldn't be just complete
change; we did decide to try this concept of a regional board."
Chairman Green cited following as a major complaint: there are so
many things in front of the fish and game boards. This regional
board would act as a filter, helping the fish and game boards act
in a more expedient manner. "So, we're going to attempt to
streamline, rather than to encumber," he concluded.
Number 0970
MS. PETE replied that certainly the concept of regional boards is
still in state statute, adding that the Governor's task force
version refines the regional board concept and process. Some of
the questions about implementation would be cleared up by Mr.
Delaney's testimony. Ms. Pete noted that in trying to understand
the leap from abundance, for all Alaskans qualifying, to a
shortage, Deputy Commissioner Bosworth had gone through the process
that the ADF&G uses under current law. She stated, "This bill
repeals all of those provisions, in repealing .258. So, I think
we're having a hard time doing away with .258 and trying to figure
out what's there."
CHAIRMAN GREEN indicated this may have to be modified to re-
incorporate what Deputy Commissioner Bosworth had talked about,
because that still is the intent.
Number 1055
REPRESENTATIVE ETHAN BERKOWITZ asked Ms. Pete what percentage of
the state population would be disqualified under subsection (b) on
page 2.
MS. PETE answered that it is difficult to determine the percentage,
but that she had a list of the communities that would be
disqualified. She first said it would be 60 communities, then
indicated the big-population boroughs of Anchorage, Fairbanks,
Juneau, Ketchikan, Valdez and Kenai are also out. They would be
adding communities such as Angoon, Central, Dot Lake and Eagle.
"In terms of population, it probably doesn't add that many more
people," she concluded. "It's just the character of the
communities that are added are pretty arbitrary."
Number 1119
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ said he sees communities like Cordova and
Unalaska being swept into this. He asked whether a transient or
migratory stock that goes from a nonsubsistence area to a
subsistence area presents special management problems or
challenges.
Number 1161
KEVIN DELANEY, Director, Division of Sport Fish, Alaska Department
of Fish and Game, answered, "Challenges and considerations?
Certainly; it is one extra level of complexity there.
Insurmountable hurdle? Probably not, but certainly a consideration
that needs to be taken into account." He said he would address
that in his testimony.
CHAIRMAN GREEN acknowledged the presence of Representative
Williams.
Number 1192
REPRESENTATIVE JEANNETTE JAMES followed up on Representative
Berkowitz' question, mentioning the communities that would be
excluded because they couldn't meet the criteria. She asked Ms.
Pete what she believes ANILCA was to address, including what kinds
of people and what kinds of needs ANILCA was intended to cover.
Number 1255
MS. PETE indicated John Borbridge was in attendance and he intends
to address that piece of history. She then indicated that in pre-
McDowell, the state seemed to have been implementing the law and
has been in compliance fairly well, providing opportunities for
people that needed them.
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES noted that was when they were acting solely
under "rural." She suggested the need to define it another way, to
determine what they must define that fits these people that were
supposedly given this benefit.
Number 1349
CHAIRMAN GREEN said that was a dilemma, because with the "rural"
definition in another bill that had been presented, there seemed to
be absolutely no criteria used. He stated, "Prior to that, though,
we did have nonsubsistence area, essentially the Railbelt. Now,
there were several communities within that nonsubsistence area, if
I'm not mistaken, and that's in effect what we're trying to do
here." Chairman Green said if Anchorage, Fairbanks, Juneau and
Ketchikan were nonsubsistence areas according to ANILCA, they are
trying to find what characterized those communities and use that as
a guide to other communities, to differentiate between a cash
economy and a subsistence economy. "And we don't get [nearly as]
many villages as you do; we came up with about a dozen," he said.
"But those would fit that same criteria, just like Fairbanks does.
And that's the intent. If that's not the right way, then we would
appreciate your giving us some guidance as to what is the proper
way. But ... we're trying to get across: If 'rural and urban'
doesn't get it, then what other criteria can we use to get what
does really depend on subsistence, as opposed to what depends on a
cash economy?"
Number 1431
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ asked why subsection (b) has been
incorporated into Version X, when it wasn't in Version R. Was it
in response to anything in particular?
CHAIRMAN GREEN replied, "We did away with the personal criteria and
went to an area criteria, saying, 'Okay, what would be the best way
to determine whether a village or a community was in or was out?'"
He noted that there had been a lot of dissention when they tried to
do it individually, because it raised the specter of dependence or
welfare. Therefore, they had asked what commonality that they
could use.
Number 1473
REPRESENTATIVE ERIC CROFT followed up on Representative James'
question, trying to get to what characterizes a community that is
appropriate for a subsistence area. He mentioned Hoonah's
disqualification under this bill because of being on the Alaska
Marine Highway system, and Saint Marys' disqualification because of
regular air service. He asked whether Ms. Pete is familiar with
either community.
MS. PETE answered that she went to high school in Saint Marys.
Number 1490
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT asked what characteristics of Saint Marys
makes it an appropriate subsistence area.
MS. PETE referred to Chairman Green's explanation of why they came
up with these characteristics. She then explained that when the
joint boards, when they did so, would determine an area to be rural
or nonrural, in going through either proposals or questions about
those determinations since the mid-'80s. There were data-based
discussions about what these communities were engaged in, including
per-capita income, the number of jobs and types of jobs. And at
the core was per-capita subsistence production, the per-capita
reliance on fish and game.
MS. PETE explained there was a low range of per-capita production
of wild foods in places determined to be nonrural, and a
statistically significant break between what were determined to be
"nonrural" and "rural" areas. Some areas flip-flopped from
nonrural back to rural in the space of a year, because of more
information or the public comment process; Glennallen is a case in
point. Ms. Pete emphasized that all of those determinations were
data-based, although some were policy calls of the joint boards,
such as, "Do we go along with what Fairbanks does in the Wood River
or Nenana?"
Number 1627
CHAIRMAN GREEN asked, "When those were established before, though,
weren't they fixed? I mean, they didn't fluctuate in and out;
there was an area considered nonsubsistence?" He noted that jet
air service is only one of four criteria, (A) through (D), that
Saint Marys would need in order to be considered a nonsubsistence
area.
MS. PETE concurred.
CHAIRMAN GREEN indicated Saint Marys has jet service, but doesn't
have the other three criteria.
Number 1665
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT told members he is still trying to understand
what those criteria do. He asked whether Hoonah was in before, as
a rural area, and if so, what is it about Hoonah that made it a
subsistence area.
MS. PETE replied that Hoonah was in a subsistence area based on its
reliance on fish and game, primarily the per-capita production.
She asked: In looking at the communities, what is the foundation
of their economies and why do people live there? "And in many of
these communities, the most constant, stable part of their economy
is subsistence production," she said. "Money comes and goes. Jobs
come and go. But what keeps the foundation of many of these
communities is the fact that they live along a stream or on the
coastline that has high marine mammal or high salmon or high
herring production, or ... they're along a large caribou migratory
route, so that the basis of these economies is the wild foods that
they have access to."
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT asked whether that is true for Hoonah.
MS. PETE responded in the affirmative.
Number 1715
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT referred to Ms. Pete's suggested "ratcheting
language" to make it work in Section .030. He asked her to repeat
the suggested sentence that needs to be added there.
MS. PETE replied that the law that allows that type of ratcheting
and allowance for reasonable opportunity of customary and
traditional uses is in .258, the current law, which is repealed on
page 7.
Number 1750
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT said, "Before the .258 discussion, you talked
about you need a sentence there that says...."
MS. PETE replied that there should be separate subsistence
regulations that provide reasonable opportunity consistent with
customary and traditional uses.
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER said, "As opposed to personal use."
MS. PETE concurred. She added that whether it is abundance-driven
or not, those regulations should stand. She returned to the
question of why these communities qualify for subsistence and noted
that many communities are placed in traditional harvesting areas.
Number 1805
REPRESENTATIVE BILL WILLIAMS referred to page 2, subsection (b)(1),
which says, "(b) A nonsubsistence area is an area or community that
(1) is connected to the contiguous state highway system by road or
by the Alaska Marine Highway System". He asked how that would
affect Southeast Alaska.
MS. PETE replied that most communities considered subsistence would
be considered nonsubsistence, including Hoonah, Angoon, Klukwan and
many others.
REPRESENTATIVE WILLIAMS also mentioned Cordova and Valdez.
Number 1867
REPRESENTATIVE NORMAN ROKEBERG referred to Ms. Pete's comments
about income determinations and asked whether it would be a fair
characterization of her testimony that using any type of income
criteria would be inappropriate.
MS. PETE said that's correct.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG noted that many urban residents take
exception to the high-income people in rural areas who would be
allowed to participate in very limited subsistence situations. He
suggested that is probably the most controversial area of allowing
a subsistence preference. He asked whether the ADF&G or the boards
have ever discussed any provision that would put a cap on the level
of family income.
MS. PETE recalled discussions about where income fits into the
picture. She explained that in looking at production levels, where
income helps is with equipment. Realistically, people need some
level of income to do subsistence activities, including purchase of
snow machines, gasoline, ammunition and so forth. What they have
found in the classic rural communities engaged in subsistence
economies is what they call the 70/30 principle, that 30 percent of
the most active households produce 70 percent of the subsistence
output in any given year. That 30 percent of the households tend
to have the higher incomes, although that is not always true. They
have the most able-bodied producers and processors. They have
people who work and can underwrite the purchase of equipment, and
they often take under their wing people who don't work, to help
them in production. And because they in essence overproduce, they
share with family members or elders or other households that cannot
produce, such as the disabled or single mothers with children.
MS. PETE said they had found that for the very high-end income
levels, such as school teachers or transient professionals who come
into the region, they often cannot be high producers or hunters.
Therefore, even though there may be high-income people living there
who theoretically qualify, those people generally don't engage in
subsistence. If they teach or do administrative work for ten
months of the year, for example, they are gone for the most highly
active parts of the year. "So, I remember the joint boards
deciding that that wasn't a very useful thing to pin on who
qualifies or didn't qualify," Ms. Pete concluded.
Number 2045
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG said if, in fact, those high-income
producers weren't going to do it anyway, then they shouldn't object
to an exception from the right to subsist.
MS. PETE agreed for the most part, but restated that there is no
point of income level at which people stop engaging in subsistence.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG emphasized that this issue bothers urban
dwellers, when talking about equity and fairness in the sharing of
the wealth of Alaska's resources. He said this is an issue they
must face.
Number 2092
REPRESENTATIVE WILLIAMS suggested that is exactly why Alaska is in
this position, and that people were living well prior to McDowell.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG said it is the $100,000-a-year person
living in Glennallen or Ninilchik doing this that drives people
crazy.
Number 2144
REPRESENTATIVE ETHAN BERKOWITZ expressed that his two areas of
concern are whether the bill prevents federal takeover and whether
it protects the subsistence way of life. Focusing on the second
part, he referred to page 2, subsection (b), and said he is not
certain how these elements have a connection to the subsistence way
of life. For example, how does being served by the Alaska Marine
Highway System or being able to drive into Anchorage affect an
individual's subsistence lifestyle?
Number 2179
CHAIRMAN GREEN replied that they have been talking with several
members of the ADF&G. He suggested it would be best to limit, as
well as they can, the number of people who would be in a
subsistence setting when the harvestable game is very low. One
discussion had been that instead of listing criteria, perhaps the
legislature should actually list the communities. However, there
should be criteria for that, and they are trying to determine what
those criteria would be.
CHAIRMAN GREEN said there were flaws in the task force approach.
For example, Saxman was included but Ketchikan wasn't. He said he
couldn't see any rationale behind how the communities were chosen,
if it was supposedly based on rural or nonrural. "So, we went
through another iteration here, trying to come up with something
that was common," he said. "And I hear what you're saying, that
the way you did it before was kind of a loosey-goosey thing,
saying, 'Well, we think these people are more dependent on it,' or,
'This is more customary and traditional here than it is over here,'
which was an arbitrary decision by Fish and Game?"
Number 2255
MS. PETE replied, "No, the opposite. It was data-based."
CHAIRMAN GREEN asked data-based on what.
MS. PETE said it was data-based on things like subsistence output
per year, the numbers and kinds of jobs, and how much unemployment
or underemployment there was.
CHAIRMAN GREEN responded that some of those things are right in
here. He cited unemployment as an example.
MS. PETE said they are listed under the characteristics in
subsection (c). "Certainly, they were there," she added. "But
they weren't as proscriptive ..., with arbitrary cut-off points, as
under (b)."
Number 2279
CHAIRMAN GREEN asked whether Ms. Pete has a form or policy they had
used. He said, "If you could share that information with us, maybe
we could work toward a common goal. I hear it, but I've never seen
it. Could you tell us, or show us, or send me a memo or
something?"
Number 2290
MR. DELANEY said he and Ms. Pete were both there in 1992 when the
joint boards deliberated after passage of the 1992 law, in an
effort to draw the boundaries of what are now the nonsubsistence
zones in the state. He believes a majority of the calls they
needed to make were not close calls; they had ample information,
and it was fairly easy to draw a conclusion, one way or the other.
In addition, there were a few areas that were more difficult to
draw; most of those lie not so much on the road system but in the
Railbelt. Mr. Delaney stated, "That's where I would say, having
observed those discussions, that they did what Director Pete talked
about earlier. They took a look at the data bases, and then they
made some legitimate public policy calls; they used their
discretion to say 'in' and 'out.'"
Number 2332
CHAIRMAN GREEN asked whether those varied or stayed in or out.
MR. DELANEY answered that for the most part, since 1992, the
boundaries of those areas have remained unchanged, with minor
adjustments.
CHAIRMAN GREEN said, "Well, that sounds like exactly what we're
looking for. If you have that already, would you please share it
with us?"
Number 2359
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ stated, "I just want to be clear on this.
Representative Green is concerned that there's some limits placed
in the contingency of a shortage. And if someone currently is
subsistence hunting or fishing, are they subject to seasons, bag
limits, anything like that? If they are, could you describe the
kind of limitations they have?"
Number 2373
MS. PETE replied, "All hunting and fishing, just about, is subject
to regulation. There are seasons, bag limits, methods and means
criteria. Where there aren't enough for all subsistence users, in
the current situation, since all Alaskans qualify, we have
(indisc.) for Tier II hunts, for example. You go through a process
of either adjusting seasons or bag limits, or methods and means, to
the point where the appropriate board determines that there isn't
enough ... to satisfy all subsistence users, and then you start to
distinguish among the subsistence users, through the Tier II
process. And in the Tier II application process, you use two
criteria: one is dependence; another is historical dependence on
that species or that population, and whether you have alternative
sources, alternative means, to satisfy your subsistence needs.
There are those two criteria left (indisc.). There is proximity to
the fish or game; that has been struck down."
Number 2431
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ expressed his understanding that the
department could close off something in the contingency of a dire
emergency.
MS. PETE affirmed that.
CHAIRMAN GREEN said, "Following up on Representative Berkowitz, I
think that's exactly what we're looking at. You call it Tier II;
we're calling it whatever this kind of dependent subsistence is.
And the other part of subsistence would be, if you want to keep it
that way or a general subsistence, or ... however we designate it,
if you have criteria that you use, that have worked fairly, that's
what we're after."
Number 2456
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER concurred that the committee needs some
assistance in crafting language that accommodates what both the
department and the committee would like to see happen. He
requested they provide any suggestions for the specific criteria
they had been talking about, to edify the 14 characteristics.
TAPE 98-49, SIDE B
Number 0006
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER continued, talking about having a subsistence
customary and traditional taking of fish and wildlife; next to it
could be a vegetarian commune that doesn't need a subsistence
preference, except on the berries. He said this doesn't fit that,
suggesting they are looking for something that would make that fit.
MS. PETE responded, "Pre-McDowell, just because you were rural
doesn't mean you had subsistence. You could be rural but not have
customary and traditional uses of fish and game, and not qualify."
CHAIRMAN GREEN said, "And that's where we want to go."
Number 0030
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER said, "I think that 'rural' is the problem
all over the place. I mean it's something that there's no doubt
that we're going to have to deal with in ANILCA, but it isn't the
appropriate term that we're looking for. Nobody knows what 'rural'
is or isn't. I think we could very reasonably come up with what is
a subsistence area and what isn't. Whether that's rural or not,
especially looking at 9th Circuit Court of Appeals definitions of
rural, ... it just doesn't work."
Number 0053
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES said it seems they ought to be defining a
subsistence lifestyle, for individuals as well as for communities.
She said she understands the Native interests, but those issues
cannot be addressed at this level of government. She commended Ms.
Pete's testimony at a previous hearing, then suggested people may
also live this subsistence lifestyle outside of a community. She
asked Ms. Pete if she considers people who depend greatly on marine
mammals, which harvests are controlled by the federal government,
to be part of this issue, or if they are only talking about
harvests controlled by the state. She specified, "When you're
calculating whether they principally depend on a subsistence
lifestyle, do you count that principal dependence upon marine
mammals or other issues that we don't, as a state, have any control
over?"
MS. PETE replied, "In our data base, we look at all wild fish and
game, including marine mammals. We don't separate them out."
Number 0176
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES continued, "So then, if you include marine
mammals in your calculation, you're automatically giving an edge to
the Native population, because they're the only ones that can
harvest marine mammals. So, if they're out there in Western Alaska
somewhere depending on marine mammals, that's going to
automatically - regardless of anything else - probably make them
qualify."
MS. PETE answered, "For coastal communities, probably. But even
without marine mammals, there are pretty hefty per-capita
productions of fish and game, non-marine mammal game."
Number 0200
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES inquired, for the food supplied by
subsistence, what percentage is game and what percentage is fish.
MS. PETE replied that in their latest update, the percentages
varied slightly, but fish predominates in whatever output they look
at. About a quarter of that is game, depending on location. Also,
depending on location, the highest percentage is about 14 percent
marine mammals, to her belief.
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES asked whether that is 14 percent marine
mammals, with the other 86 percent being mostly fish.
MS. PETE said generally, depending on the location, it is 60
percent to 80 percent fish.
Number 0223
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG noted that he had to leave soon to chair
the House Labor and Commerce Standing Committee. He referred to
the suggested alternative of naming actual communities or villages;
he counseled against that, saying it would be politically
unpalatable for some people. More importantly, the boards need
flexibility and a certain level of discretion, because there is
always a change in dynamics. As Representative James had pointed
out, a change in economic circumstances could cause a community to
qualify or not qualify, for example. He said there are communities
in the state that have to recognize that and may have to change
their attitudes about whether they are subsistence-qualified or
not. He added that he doesn't think there is a constitutional
right to subsistence in this state.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG complimented Chairman Green on trying to
set some standards in this legislation. He referred to the
question of whether some Southeast Alaska communities might not
qualify because of the ferry system and noted that there are
secondary criteria, which might need some adjustment. Nevertheless
there may be communities on the road system or the ferry system
that have high income levels and may have to give something up. He
said there is a growing belief that game, in particular, is under
increased pressure in Alaska. The way the definitions are set
forth now, only a very limited geographical area of the state is
excepted from subsistence activity, although it isn't small in
population.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG concluded, "We should be able to talk to
the people of the state and make sure they understand that one of
our goals is to restrict the number of people that can qualify for
this to the people that, number one, need it, deserve it, and have
the historic context with it, ... whatever criterion you come up
with that is workable. ... Should we minimize the number of people
or should we maximize the number of people that qualify? And I
think that's something we need to decide on, and I think that's
what you're trying to do here, to a degree. And I think that's
good."
Number 0399
CHAIRMAN GREEN shared a portion of an e-mail message received from
a very remote village, which stated: "In addition, you should know
that the people of the rural areas of Alaska have significant
buying power in the urban areas of Alaska like Fairbanks, Anchorage
and Kenai. I order my groceries from Anchorage every month, as do
other teachers and residents of [the village, which Chairman Green
did not name] and numerous other villages. ... I could just as
easily order them from Bethel or from a company in Woodinville,
Washington." Chairman Green stated, "Now, the problem we're having
in trying to resolve this subsistence issue is you get a statement
like this, that doesn't sound like a subsistence person."
Number 0432
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ responded that it bears absolutely no
relationship to subsistence. He explained, "What you are looking
at is sort of an idea that subsistence is merely a way of putting
food on the table, and I think that's one paradigm for subsistence.
There's another paradigm, and that's the paradigm I think that most
the people in the Bush see subsistence as, and that's as a way of
life, as a way of going out and gathering the ... food, as a way of
generating some kind of community spirit and ... sense of
community. Now, just because someone purchases groceries through
a mail order, or augments their diet by going to a store, doesn't
mean that they necessarily are doing less hunting or less fishing.
It just means that they're augmenting it in a different fashion.
And those are two, in my mind, very separate questions."
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ said it goes back to the question asked by
Representative Rokeberg about whether they should try to draw the
net as tightly as possible or to open it widely. He noted that one
problem of drawing it too tightly is running afoul of ANILCA, which
the state cannot afford to do. The advantage of doing it widely is
it would accommodate ANILCA, as well as the interests of Alaskans
who want to be part of a subsistence lifestyle. He concluded,
"When we fall short of that, when we draw this too tightly, we cut
off that option for a lot of Alaskans, which is more problematic
not just in terms of ANILCA, but in terms of the choices that the
people in Alaska want to make."
Number 0502
CHAIRMAN GREEN indicated perhaps the best idea is getting into the
ADF&G data base and determining a way to establish what criteria to
use, because in order to get changes to ANILCA, there must be a
procedure. He suggested the need to stop some of the things
imposed on the state by ANILCA, change them around, and then stop
federal takeover.
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES said she understands what subsistence means to
these people because she grew up on a small acreage and knows what
it is to live off the land. She told members one of the biggest
fears she hears from the public, which she would like to protect,
is not to expand the use of subsistence use in the future, or let
more people come in and be part of the system; rather, they want to
allow those people who want to live that lifestyle to do so for the
rest of the lives. However, the issue that needs to be addressed
is ensuring that people don't live both lifestyles. She suggested
cooperation is needed here, and she expressed great interest in
getting language that everyone can agree on, to define what they
are trying to protect.
Number 0639
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT asked whether under this bill Barrow would be
included or excluded.
MS. PETE said it is excluded because of jet service, the rate of
poverty, and the median income.
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT stated his understanding is that because of
development there, Barrow has a fairly wealthy non-Native
population but a relatively poor Native population that he believes
would probably fit these median income, poverty level and
unemployment criteria. He inquired about situations where a Native
community with a customary and traditional use of the resource, and
with few significant alternatives, is amalgamated to a fairly
wealthy white community because of development. He asked if his
understanding of Barrow is true, and if so, why it makes sense to
have those Natives lose their subsistence preference because of
that situation.
Number 0717
MS. PETE replied that Barrow is not the only community in that
position. She cited Bethel, Nome and Saint Marys as examples. She
noted that Saint Marys has a regional boarding school and a large
Catholic missionary outpost. Bethel is a service hub for 56
villages and has a large state and federal presence, with many non-
Natives in higher paying professional jobs in the community. She
stated, "I guess for management and implementation's sake, what I'm
saying, as a division director, is it doesn't make sense to exclude
those places from subsistence."
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT suggested in many places, the higher paid
school teacher, mine operator or management is not from the Native
community.
MS. PETE concurred.
Number 0785
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER asked whether a majority of the people in
Bethel, for example, live a subsistence lifestyle such that under
pre-McDowell rules and regulations, Bethel would be considered a
subsistence area.
MS. PETE said yes.
Number 0830
MR. DELANEY told members he was present to discuss some fairly
specific implementation issues, which had been mentioned briefly.
He noted that some testifiers had traveled long distances, and he
said he would spend a couple of minutes letting members know what
type of information he had planned to bring forward that day. He
stated, "What I came to discuss specifically were two things. And
one was what we assess, or some of the practical effects on other
beneficial uses and on subsistence uses of having all Alaskans
eligible for subsistence priority - a statutory priority - outside
of the nonsubsistence zones. That was number one."
MR. DELANEY continued, "And then the second thing I came to talk
about today was maybe just discuss with you some of the management
utility of nonsubsistence zones, and how modifying boundaries to
carefully adjust for what's within and what's without - at least in
a near proximity - affects the way we actually manage, and the
effects on the other beneficial users. So, it gets down one level
from the 'what should be and what shouldn't.' But it's real
important, I think, to have an interactive discussion when you look
at characteristics of a nonsubsistence zone, and the practicality
of actually managing hunting and fishing with boundaries that exist
in kind of, sometimes, awkward places." Mr. Delaney concluded by
telling members he would be present the next two days to work with
the committee.
CHAIRMAN GREEN thanked both Mr. Delaney and Ms. Pete. He called on
Steve White from the Department of Law, but Mr. White deferred to
the out-of-town testifiers. Chairman Green noted that there would
be some redrafting, and suggested Mr. White may want to testify
after the redraft occurs.
Number 0942
CLEM TILLION came before the committee to testify. He has the same
trouble on what is subsistence. He defined subsistence as a man
who shoots a moose with a 70 inch spread and leaves the horns and
packs the meat out. Mr. Tillion said he would discuss the horrors
of federal management and said he was in the old commonwealth party
that didn't want statehood, but rather independence. He noted his
support of the Native land claims issue because of the giving up of
aboriginal rights. He noted that he has a mixed family. He
doesn't like the idea that some of his grandchildren can hunt seals
and some can't. Mr. Tillion informed the committee members he was
a fur seal commissioner. He believes the horror of what Green
Peace did to the people of the Pribilof Islands is one the
committee ought to remember if they are even thinking of pushing it
to the wire and maybe going to federal management. They were
wiped out financially. Today those on the Pribilof Islands are
allowed to take a certain amount of seals for food, but must place
the hides in a pit and pour acid on them so that nothing of
economic value id left. That is federal management. Today, we
have one-eighth the number of salmon in Alaska compared to when the
federallies matched it. The federal government couldn't say no to
any pressure group, and they didn't have the financing to do it.
When the field people in Alaska wanted to take an action, it had to
be cleared with Washington, which took three calendar days. By
then, often the run was lost or the disaster had happened.
MR. TILLION pointed out that Halibut Cove is nonsubsistence under
the last criterion. He said, "We're very rural, I don't object to
that until they start closing the clams or something back, because
the things we depend on, they've never closed." He discussed
problems with using a cash criteria. He referred to a person who
has an urban job and makes $100,000 a year, a high-line seiner in
Hoonah that might make $100,000 some year and the hippie that has
just moved in and has no income. He asked if the hippie would be
more eligible than that Tlingit who has lived his life picking
gumboots on the minus tides. Mr. Tillion referred to when ANILCA
was passed and said that we operated on a fairly good basis until
the McDowell case came along. He said what Alaska should be
terrified of federal management. He indicated that he thinks that
the average person of Alaska feels that those who harvest to eat
should have preference. He said, "But we have a problem with the
urban members on the Board of Fish. They think well, you've got
your personal use. And I said, 'Yeah, you open the season for -
in the late fall for crab.' Well what good does that do me? That
gives me three months that I can eat crab. 'Well, you put up what
you need for the winter.' I said, 'I don't eat frozen crab. I go
to flounders and other things that aren't frozen. I don't live in
a rural area where I live to eat some frozen thing that I can buy
at the store.'"
MR. TILLION said while he believes the problem is a solvable
problem, you have to leave some flexibility with the board as
subsistence at Unalakleet is totally different than subsistence
along the Gulf Coast. He referred to Halibut Cove and said, "When
somebody says, 'You're not rural,' I say okay, I can understand
that because what I realize is we have twice weekly mail boats,
people can access a store. We shouldn't be rural. But Port Graham
that has to fly it in and the whites that lives at Port Graham, and
there is a number of them, should have the right to harvest the
resources of that area because it is so costly to fly your
groceries in." Mr. Tillion referred to Bethel where there are good
payrolls. He said that most of the resource that is used for
subsistence is not anything you're going to have a big argument
about; everybody is thinking of the caribou, moose and salmon. It
is not as big a problem as people say, but there will be people
that will fight over it. Mr. Tillion discussed how he got to
Juneau from Halibut Cove. He said if the federal government takes
over management, there will be special interest groups in
Pennsylvania and New York that will do to Alaska what Green Peace
did to the people of the Pribilof Islands who were left destitute.
The special interest groups will come in and manage from the heart
instead of the brain and we will have lost things that we worked
for years for.
MR. TILLION said in the 1950s before statehood, he was in Alaska
tagging crab for the University of California. He informed the
committee that Cook Inlet was closed for fishing for 15 years,
crab couldn't be taken for sport, subsistence or commercial. He
pointed out that the way the living resource of the Bering Sea was
saved because it was under harvested by about 40 percent. Alaska
currently has 54 percent of all the fisheries of the United States.
He stated, "We have done a good job, biologically to risk this - of
turning it back to somebody else. Don't do it please. ...Make
this amendment." He informed the committee that there are a lot of
places in Alaska that don't have a fall-back position; a lot of
money is made one year and nothing the next year. The subsistence
food is a real basis. He urged the committee not to set a cash
criteria. He further urged the committee to make sure the
federallies stay in Washington, D.C.
Number 1727
CHAIRMAN GREEN said, "If we could work through the dilemma that
Mary and Kevin brought up to us, do you think we are - you
indicated you think we're in the right direction?"
MR. TILLION said he believes it is separate from the constitutional
amendment. He said to him, the priority is to keep the feds out.
He said, "We'll have our internal family fight among Alaskans.
Let's not bring the guys from [Washington], D.C. into that fight."
Number 1760
REPRESENTATIVE WILLIAMS pointed out that there are several people
in the legislature and outside organizations that are afraid of
federal oversight. He asked Mr. Tillion to explain the difference
between federal oversight and federal management.
MR. TILLION responded that federal oversight is a little different,
but it would be very hard to reach federal oversight if you're
doing a conscientious job. For example, if you were doing the job
and somebody complained that Bethel didn't have an allocation but
Akiak did. The federal oversight could take that up, but the
chances of them bringing it before a judge and getting anywhere is
almost nil. He preferred that we had nothing to do with the
federal government. Mr. Tillion stated that he could live with
federal oversight, but he couldn't live with direct management.
CHAIRMAN GREEN asked if Alaska would have to make some concessions
in order to keep the federal government out.
MR. TILLION responded, "Yeah, I think we were double crossed, but
that has nothing to do with it. They have have the right to double
cross us, legally. And therefore, let's face up to what we have
now. They've made a couple of good concessions - these last
changes that [Senator] Stevens got through are a lot of the
problem. I think we can live with the rest. And am I nervous?
Yes, but I'm not suicidal and doing nothing is suicidal."
Number 1899
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT said HJR 66 is the constitutional amendment.
He stated that there is a list of 12 changes to ANILCA and the
constitutional amendment does not take effect until the 12 things
are changed. He said, "If we do it in that manner, it doesn't take
effect until all these things happen on federal law, some of them
pretty aggressive, that even though we've written a good amendment
and they have a good statutory structure, we just may never get
there."
MR. TILLION said the thing is we've only got so many congressional
days. He said, "There are some of the higher-ups with experience
in the federal government that realize they can't do it. And
they're in control right now, but there is a lot of them that are
just slobbering over the new budget and the new jobs and the chance
to come to Alaska. Don't let them do it."
Number 2100
JIM SAMPSON, Member, Alaskans Together, was next to come before the
committee. He stated he has lived in Alaska for almost 40 years
and has fished and hunted all his life. Mr. Sampson explained that
Alaskans Together is a group that formed to help resolve the
subsistence issue. Alaskans Together very vigorously opposes the
federal takeover of fish and game in Alaska, and they believe
Alaskans should manage their own fish and game resources. He
thanked the committee members for their leadership on this matter.
Mr. Sampson said as the former mayor of the Fairbanks North Star
Borough, he feels he has about a good a feel as any others as to
how people feel on the issue. He feels very strongly that the
majority of people in Interior Alaska do not want the federal
government to manage Alaska's fish and game. A recent poll by
Alaskans Together showed that an overwhelming number of Fairbanks
residents agree with him. The poll also showed that people want to
vote on the issue. He referred to an editorial that was in the
Fairbanks Daily News Miner the previous day and said it was very
complimentary of Chairman Green and the committee to resolve the
issue. The editorial said there also needs to be more work. As
the legislature gets closer to adjournment, he believes the
committee will see Alaskans become more concerned about the issue.
Mr. Sampson explained he had worked with the federal government for
many years. He urged the committee to take appropriate steps to
stop the federal government from coming and managing Alaska's
resources. Alaskans Together will be stepping up their efforts to
convince the legislature to let Alaskans resolve the issue in a
way, that will bring finality to the issue once and for all.
TAPE 98-50, SIDE A
Number 0001
CARL MARRS, President/Chief Executive Officer, Cook Inlet Region,
Incorporated (CIRI); Member, Alaskans Together, came before the
committee to testify on HB 406, Version X. He commended the
committee for addressing the issue. He said there are changes that
go in the right direction as far as Alaskans Together are
concerned. Mr. Marrs stated, "The big concern is when you look at
what federal management is and what subsistence means in federal
management, traditional and cultural subsistence purposes, and the
federal government has no way or means, and no requirement to
manage it for sustained yield purposes." He referred to ADF&G and
said they do manage on a sustained yield basis and subsistence is
part of that sustained yield. If the stocks are low, they will cut
it off. The federal government won't do that as their only
criteria is to manage for subsistence purposes. He said that
doesn't fit in with the overall plan of the state and it's not in
the best interest of everybody in the state. Mr. Marrs said he
knows that there are members of the Native community that
absolutely disagree with him and believe that federal takeover is
the right thing. He stated the federal government has done a great
job of pacifying American Indians for over 200 years. When things
don't go their way, they take it all away. He said he believes
that we're driving towards that again. Mr. Marrs said one of the
reasons that he belongs to Alaskans Together is the mix of Natives
and non-Natives from across the state all working together for a
common cause. A majority of the people of this state really want
to see this issue solved. Again, we can't forget what the criteria
is for the federal government. Also, we don't know how far the
federal government reaches outside of federal boundaries when it
comes to fish and game. He questioned how much management of our
own fish and game on state lands would be left. He noted that he
put Native lands in the category of state lands because they are
private lands and fall under state jurisdiction per the supreme
court ruling. Still, there is disagreement on that point. He
referred to Cook Inlet and said one of the things that has worked
for the Kenaitze Tribe is the educational fisheries (indisc.) for
fisheries only.
MR. MARRS said he would give the committee a written summary of the
current version of the bill that he had done by counsel. Counsel
did a comparison between what the task force did, what the
committee has done and what Title VIII has done. He noted he
hasn't had a chance to review the constitutional amendment, but he
believes there are some problems that could be worked through. Mr.
Marrs thanked the committee for listening.
Number 0469
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES referred to the statement that some of the
Native population are not afraid of federal takeover. She asked
Mr. Marrs if he has an idea of what the percentage would be if
there was a vote of the Native population in the state regarding
letting the feds take over.
MR. MARRS said he doesn't know what the percentage would be and
doesn't have that kind of data. He suggested asking the Alaska
Federation of Natives. He referred to the poll that Alaskans
Together took and said it included Fairbanks, Anchorage and the
Railbelt.
CHAIRMAN GREEN indicated it is his understanding that there are
certain people within the urban area that are mixed on that.
MR. MARRS responded that it was pretty heavily in favor of moving
a constitutional amendment. It is very clear that the people in
Anchorage, Fairbanks and Railbelt area do want to vote on a
constitutional amendment. He noted the poll would be shared with
the committee before it is made public.
Number 0577
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ asked Mr. Marrs if he had an idea as to
who might benefit with federal takeover.
MR. MARRS responded that all Alaskans would not benefit from
federal takeover. He said the Sierra Club, the Audubon Society,
and other organizations that can control us from Washington, D. C.,
would benefit. Mr. Marrs said we can fight the battles, even
though there are mistrusts from the rural areas that the Board of
Fisheries and the Board of Game don't listen which is one of the
reasons we have this problem. The rural areas don't feel they were
treated fairly in the hunting and fish subsistence rights that they
had. He noted it is not just Native, but it's Natives and non-
Natives. Mr. Marrs said he remembers the federal government and
its role in Alaska during territorial days. He stated that people
in the Lower 48 do not care about Alaska, they care about the
populas in their areas. He said, "And the Department of Interior,
from the fish and wildlife side or the national parks side, you try
to find somebody that's responsible in there, you'll never get an
answer out of anybody. At least here we can deal with it among
Alaskans and you lose total control of it back there and it goes
into a vacuum. And those congressmen, whether they're from New
York or California or Florida, they don't care about us up here.
We've got one congressman there and two senators. We're lucky to
have who we have there today because they're powerful enough. But
that's not always going to be that way." Mr. Marrs referred to the
harp seal hunt at Barrow and said this has been taking place for
probably thousands of years. All it takes is a film of that shown
in the Lower 48 by the animal rights groups and all hell breaks
lose. He concluded that managing fish and game on a sustained
yield basis will last longer than if the federal government takes
over.
Number 0772
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ asked if it would be a fair statement to
say that anyone who gets in the way of a constitutional amendment
is playing into the hands of the "lock Alaska up" crowd.
MR. MARRS believed that to be very true. He recognized that there
are people who disagree with him. In his personal opinion, Mr.
Marrs believes a majority of the CIRI board feels that way or they
wouldn't allow him to serve on Alaskans Together. Again, it's a
matter of everybody working together and not trying to split the
state apart - Native or non-Native, rural or nonrural. He said,
"ANILCA, in itself, the rural areas was intended for Native and
non-Native. ... There is non-Native families that have lived out in
the rural areas for hundreds of years along with Native families."
Number 0846
DEAN PADDOCK, representing himself, informed the committee that he
followed the subsistence debate long before it became a household
word. He said we are in a state of denial. He emphasized the need
to focus on the most important imparity, keeping the feds out of
Alaska's business as much as possible. Mr. Paddock suggested
reviewing the path that brought Alaska to this situation. He
submitted that Alaska has a long history of inadequacy in striving
towards the goal of a seamless society when it comes to fish and
game management. This is in spite of long and valuable
participation on the Board of Fisheries and the Board of Game by
assorted Demmerts, Huntingtons, Browers and others from the Native
community who have served all Alaskans with distinction. Mr.
Paddock said he enjoyed hearing the testimony from members of
Alaskans Together. To say that we find ourselves in a highly
polarized climate is an understatement. He pointed out that much
input has come from the extremes on both sides. He fears that if
we listen to the extremists, we as Alaskans can forget about the
concept of one state, one people, yet he thinks that should be our
goal, socially if not culturally. Mr. Paddock said he would
commend to the committee a bottom-lined approach that will ensure
that the state of Alaska retains management of its commercial
fisheries. Some believe that the present courts will result in the
retention of state management, but he disagrees. Mr. Paddock
indicated he would like to incorporate everything Mr. Tillion said
into his testimony.
MR. PADDOCK explained he had been a fisheries management biologist
in the biggest commercial salmon fishery in the state for a number
of years. As such, he observed the federal fiasco during
territorial days. He guaranteed that federal management, in the
future, would be worse than it was during territorial days as it
won't be for maximum or optimum sustainable yield for multiple
beneficial uses. Federal management will be to benefit perceived
subsistence use, first and last, in the blind fashion in which
Washington, D. C. has excelled. Mr. Paddock stated, "It is my
opinion that if you fall short in recovering state management, you
will have presided over the dismantling of the on-shore Alaska
commercial fishery, and we won't get it back. We will all then
have a ringside seat to observe just how important the contribution
of the fisheries have been the economy and life style of this state
while we watch the multimillion dollars of investment and income
from these sources trickle away to inconsequence. All the
processing plants, all the boats, the gear, the transportation, the
service industries that largely depend on the commercial fishery
will, to all intents and purposes, be decimated. At that time, I
predict that many of those who come before you demanding freedom to
conduct their subsistence hunting and fishing activities in a
manner totally unfettered by regulation will be looking around and
asking, 'What went wrong?'" Mr. Paddock said that we are in a
state of denial and need to admit that the federal government has
us all over a barrel. He indicated he support for Alaskans
Together and the Governor's task force, which includes a
constitutional amendment. To amend the constitution may be
fighting a rear-guard action, but it keeps the ball in Alaska's
court. He thanked the committee members for listening.
Number 1311
MARLENE ZUBOFF, Executive Director, Angoon Community Association,
was next to come before the committee to testify. She explained
her family lives in Angoon. Ms. Zuboff indicated concern for the
existence of her subsistence and her traditional and customary use
of the land. She informed the committee the Angoon Community
Association provides general assistance for needy people. Angoon's
economy is low, but not for the lack of trying to create an economy
within their community. Ms. Zuboff has always been actively
involved in her customary and traditional use of food gathering in
all aspects, such as getting the fish, cleaning it, cutting it up
and preserving it for the winter. Ms. Zuboff referred to HB 406,
Version X and indicated concern because there is a lack of economic
development for the rural communities. She said Angoon is rural,
the people have to leave the island in order to get medical
assistance. They have to fly, which is costly, and they also use
the Alaska Marine Highway System. Ms. Zuboff said she is speaking
against Version X. She discussed the low employment rates in
Angoon. Ms. Zuboff informed the committee that their Native
corporation utilizes a quarterly dividend program because there is
a need to have that money throughout the year and not receive it
all at once. Ms. Zuboff said, "I put up fish, I jar it, I vacuum
seal them, I put up jam, I use shellfish, I show my children how to
do this. It is very important for us, such as myself, that I pass
this on to my children because this is renewable resource that we
have been taught from time in memorial. That if we don't take care
of what we have here on our land now, it's not going to be there
for us to depend on tomorrow, the next year or a hundred years from
now. And we can't just worry about protecting what's around us, we
have to be very educated and aware of what's happening to us in
respect to other activities that are taking place a hundred miles
away to the north or to the south of us. Our people have stories
that go back, we have the migration story - it runs parallel with
the Bible." Ms. Zuboff explained that their stories and songs are
precious to her just as food and water is.
MS. ZUBOFF agreed with the previous statements regarding
unemployment; unemployment statistics do not provide accurate
statistical data with which to draw because the data is only taken
from those actively seeking employment. Ms. Zuboff expressed
concern for her people who do not have jobs. She said, "The
majority of them are over 90 percent unemployment." Ms. Zuboff
informed the committee that food, lights, and fuel must be
freighted into Angoon. Utilities are expensive in Angoon. Ms.
Zuboff pointed out that Juneau's economy was benefitting from
Angoon's population due to the Gold Medal Games taking place in
Juneau. Ms. Zuboff reiterated her objection to Version X. She
stated, "Nowhere do we see the majority of my people making $35,000
and I don't believe that just because the Alaska Marine Highway
comes into Angoon that we should be considered nonrural. I know
there is a way, there has to be a way for everybody to have common
ground. And it's going to take work, but I don't think it should
be on the backs of my people who need and rely on a subsistence way
of life." Ms. Zuboff suggested that if this path is to be taken,
economic development for such communities should also be done. She
emphasized the need to take care in this situation.
Number 1860
CHAIRMAN GREEN asked if Ms. Zuboff's main objection to Version X
was due to the inclusion of the ferry system as a criteria.
MS. ZUBOFF stated that she objected to Version X in its entirety.
In response to Chairman Green, Ms. Zuboff pointed out that the
committee has statistical data that points out that Angoon relies
heavily on the traditional and customary use of the land. She
suggested that the committee utilize that data. If jobs cannot be
brought into the community, then Angoon faces being nonrural. Ms.
Zuboff saw this as her food being taken away from her.
CHAIRMAN GREEN said that Angoon would be a subsistence area, except
for the presence of the ferry system. He asked Ms. Zuboff if that
criterion were removed from Version X and Angoon remained a
subsistence area; are there other portions of the bill that are of
concern? He noted that the database would be used if another route
was chosen. Chairman Green stated that the goal was to determine
the best manner in which to allow maintaining a subsistence
lifestyle while excluding others during times of shortage in order
to avoid over harvesting of an area.
MS. ZUBOFF said, "I would say, the State of Alaska Constitution
already answered that question - leave us to our quiet enjoyment.
We use less than 1 percent of the resources." She pointed out that
more sports fish are leaving Alaska than Native people are taking
and using. Native people are not over using subsistence. She
noted that the Angoon Community Association would be forwarding a
position response on this matter. Ms. Zuboff objected to her
customary and traditional use being the topic of discussion because
she is considered to be living in a rural area, Angoon. Ms. Zuboff
reiterated the need to follow the state constitution.
Number 1995
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES affirmed that places vary across the state,
but noted that prior testimony from Mary Pete discussed the
practice of community sharing. Representative James asked Ms.
Zuboff if subsistence use in her area practiced such community
sharing as in Western Alaska.
MS. ZUBOFF agreed that community sharing was practiced in her area.
In Angoon, the community also helps those in need financially with
medical expenses and other emergencies.
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES asked if there are people in Angoon who do not
participate in the subsistence lifestyle.
MS. ZUBOFF stated that not all of the population participates in
the subsistence lifestyle. There are teachers in the community
from the Lower 48 who do not totally live the subsistence lifestyle
because their employment affords them purchasing power. Ms. Zuboff
informed the committee that over 90 percent of the Angoon community
rely on the customary and traditional use of the land.
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER commented that the committee is attempting
to re-work the draft legislation in order to accommodate Ms.
Zuboff's concern.
MS. ZUBOFF noted that it has become necessary to be politically
involved in the process in order to protect subsistence for
herself. She informed the committee that she had been taught to
make decisions with not only her best interest in mind, but also
that of her grandchildren. Ms. Zuboff suggested that the committee
should utilize such a process as well.
CHAIRMAN GREEN affirmed that the committee was trying to work
through subsistence to address concerns such as Ms. Zuboff's.
Chairman Green noted that many fear federal takeover not so much
with regard to who is in control, but rather the decimation of the
stocks.
In conclusion, MS. ZUBOFF remarked that her tribal government
councilmen are in favor of a federal takeover due to the protection
of the fisheries up to the 200 mile limit. After 18 years of
statehood, commercial fishing in Alaska almost decimated the
herring which has not recovered to its status prior to statehood.
Ms. Zuboff said, "We say look at our island as a dish, take from it
but don't break it."
Number 2274
KEVIN SWEENEY, representing the Alaska Federation of Natives (AFN),
stressed that if the committee wants to hear from the Native
community, which many have indicated, then more time in the
testimony as well as advanced hearing notice should be given,
especially when new legislation and changes are made. To relay
information to AFN delegates and members takes time. In order for
AFN delegates and members to have an educated opinion on this
legislation more time is necessary. Mr. Sweeney informed the
committee that the constitutional amendment and ANILCA changes were
not received until 11:00 a.m. this morning which is a holiday.
That is not enough time to relay to the AFN delegation. Mr.
Sweeney suggested that the remainder of the week be utilized to
schedule hearings in order to hear from the Native community if
that is the desire of the committee. He noted that AFN acts with
direction from the board and that time is necessary for the board
to discuss and give direction.
CHAIRMAN GREEN stated that the committee would work tomorrow and
hopefully, have a version move out of committee tomorrow or
Wednesday. Chairman Green pointed out that the committee is under
time restraints.
MR. SWEENEY recommended that a days notice be given, if a version
is decided upon tomorrow. Furthermore, notice with regard to when
and where the hearings will be held as well as allowing enough
telecommunications space in rural areas and Native villages for
testimony.
Number 2362
LYDIA GEORGE, a subsistence user from Angoon, informed the
committee that in the Tlingit tradition the grandmother is the
teacher of the girls. Ms. George is taking care of her two
granddaughters and teaching them how to serve the traditional food,
take care of the land, and respect nature. The number one rule of
Native communities is not to pollute the area where food is
obtained, which for Angoon is Admiralty Island. She noted that at
age 74 she still works four hours a day at the school as the
Cultural Instructor. Ms. George mentioned President Carter and his
proclamation that Admiralty Island would be a national monument.
She discussed her respect and faith for authority, especially
federal and state government agencies. Welfare was brought into
Angoon and her two granddaughters received welfare. When Ms.
George returned to work her granddaughters were taken off welfare
and she could not receive a Health and Social Services pension or
Medicaid.
TAPE 98-50, SIDE B
Number 2461
MS. GEORGE discussed the hard work necessary to take care of the
food and noted that high-tech machines are utilized. She
reiterated that the state had stopped the welfare program and that
Angoon has 90 percent unemployment which leaves only the
subsistence lifestyle for those in Angoon. Ms. George said, "We
are very, very protective and we don't want to be taken off that
list. Because [President] Carter, in his proclamation says, the
people that lives on Admiralty Island will go back in time and live
like the way the ancestors lived. That is the law." She
emphasized that she was happy with Alaska's statehood. Ms. George
thanked the committee.
Number 2357
MAXINE THOMPSON, Mayor-elect, City of Angoon, echoed Mr. Sweeney's
comments regarding the need for more time to prepare a response to
this Version X. Ms. Thompson reiterated that Angoon has high
unemployment. The island has been preserved for Alaska and others
to appreciate, but that has left no economic base. Ms. Thompson
mentioned that developmental plans are being worked on with which
she hoped the state would help. Ms. Thompson stressed that the
committee understand that as Native people, it is difficult to
separate Native foods from your culture and your being. Ms.
Thompson disagreed with the use of income as a criterion for
eliminating a person from the subsistence lifestyle. Furthermore
the criteria regarding the access to an airport, the ferry system,
or a road causes Ms. Thompson much concern. She discussed the
value of keeping Admiralty Island pristine. Neighboring
communities which have had logging in their community come to
Admiralty Island to get their subsistence food. Those people
cannot be turned away. Ms. Thompson noted that cumulative impact
is a concern for the fish and has been brought before the state.
In conclusion, Ms. Thompson emphasized the need to address and work
through the problems in order that the result be what Alaskans
want.
Number 2131
GREGORY BROWN discussed his family lineage and the respect they
have for the land. Due to the imbalance under regulation and
management, there are more extinct animals than ever before. He
said that he could not live without traditional foods which are a
mainstay of his diet. Mr. Brown, who was born and raised in
Hoonah, is a father of five and grandfather of three. He and his
family depend heavily on traditional foods and without which they
would all starve. Currently, he attends college in Juneau, but
does not receive enough funding to feed himself and his family.
Mr. Brown informed the committee that he had fought the federal
government on the subsistence issue when seal hunting and the
taking of seal meat was not considered to be subsistence. Mr.
Brown indicated that if the state took over subsistence it could
take 20 years or more to deal with the issue. Mr. Brown pointed out
that subsistence only pertains to 4 percent of the state's
population and asked, "So why is it such a big problem?" He
questioned Mr. Paddock's comment regarding subsistence being
commercial.
CHAIRMAN GREEN believed that Mr. Paddock meant that a federal take
over should be avoided because it would adversely affect commercial
fishing.
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ said that Mr. Brown must have
misunderstood Mr. Paddock's comment.
MR. BROWN pointed out that his brother and brother-in-law send him
traditional foods from Hoonah without which he would starve. Due
to a back injury, Mr. Brown has not had a job for the past five
years. Mr. Brown said, "I would object to HB 406 and ask that it
be handed over to the Native organizations. Because we, as Native
people, are the only ones that can regulate our subsistence to
ourself." Mr. Brown referred to the Venetie school system, a
traditional school system, which has a 98 percent success rate. He
attributed the success in Venetie to the fact that the people
attacked the problem. In comparison, Mr. Brown said, "Whereas you
have a 65 percent drop-out rate in Alaska here for Native kids.
So, that that system is not working and it kind of worries me
because you guys -- it seems to me that the Legislature keeps
feeding money into a system that doesn't work. Why feed a system
if it doesn't work?" Mr. Brown suggested that the committee review
the success of the Venetie school system.
Number 1917
CHAIRMAN GREEN noted that there is another piece of legislation
which addresses the school system, but it is not before the
committee at this time. Chairman Green agreed that the comparison
illustrated that the Venetie school system is working.
MS. THOMPSON reiterated that the City of Angoon would be forwarding
a response paper to the committee.
CHAIRMAN GREEN stated that there will be revisions to this version
and every effort would be made to forward such revisions in a
timely fashion.
MS. GEORGE interjected that the Senior Citizen Services of Angoon
is without funding. The senior citizens in Angoon are starving.
CHAIRMAN GREEN began with those wishing to testify via
teleconference.
Number 1808
DARRIO NOTTI, testifying via teleconference from Bethel, referred
to Section 1, line 7 and interpreted the language to mean that even
during shortages, only a portion of the stocks and populations that
are customarily and traditionally taken will be allowed. Is that
a correct interpretation?
CHAIRMAN GREEN explained that Section 1 refers to the Board of
Fisheries and the Board of Game determination of whether there is
a surplus of stock or should subsistence use be in place. If the
stock or population is more than the sustained yield, the process
would be handled as it is currently.
MR. NOTTI referred to Section 19 of HJR 66 and suggested that the
word "may" on line 7 be changed to "will". Furthermore, Mr. Nottie
did not foresee the federal government accepting many of the
subsections in Section 29 of HJR 66.
CHAIRMAN GREEN asked if Mr. Notti felt those items in Section 29
were worth negotiating.
MR. NOTTI did not know and returned to discussion regarding HB 406.
He referred to page 2, line 7 and inquired as to what would happen
to the specified income during an era of inflation.
CHAIRMAN GREEN recognized his concern and stated that if the
specified income were maintained then it would float with
inflation. Chairman Green noted that much of today's testimony has
indicated that using income is not an appropriate criterion. He
indicated that the committee would be working with ADF&G to develop
some new criterions.
MR. NOTTI addressed subparagraph (D), the jet aircraft criterion,
and inquired as to what would happen during periods when there is
no jet aircraft service. For example, in McGrath in the early
1970s there would be occasion when Wings would schedule jets and
then other times not. Aniak is another example of a community that
has experienced jet aircraft service on and off.
CHAIRMAN GREEN acknowledged that the jet aircraft criterion may not
be a good criterion.
MR. NOTTI commented, in reference to previous testimony regarding
shopping in urban areas, that he must shop somewhere for items that
cannot be grown. He believed that comment was in reference to
SB 36 and school funding which should have nothing to do with HB
406. With regard to Representative Rokeberg's comments indicating
his dismay with those making $100,000 subsistence fishing, Mr.
Notti expressed dismay with those already making $100,000 coming
into his area and competing with him. Mr. Notti said that he had
never made close to $100,000 in a year, although he would fall well
above the $35,000 criterion. He pointed out that much of his
subsistence use is shared with others who may have no income.
Number 1397
LOREN CROXTON, testifying via teleconference from Petersburg,
informed the committee that he had been involved with the
subsistence issue in one manner or another since its conception.
He related his work history under ADF&G and the US Fish & Wildlife
Service for operation in Alaska. Mr. Croxton also served as the
chair of the Petersburg Fish & Game Advisory Committee and also sat
as chair on the regional council. Mr. Croxton appreciated
Representative Porter's remarks regarding ANILCA, Title VIII, and
ANCSA. There is no question that ANCSA abolished all aboriginal
rights which the US Supreme Court recently reaffirmed. The
committee hearing minutes during the drafting of ANCSA includes
language regarding the continuing use of the resources by Alaska
Natives. Unfortunately, that language was never incorporated into
Title VIII. Mr. Croxton emphasized the need to be guided by Title
VIII.
MR. CROXTON stated that Version X is too long and complicated.
With regard to Representative James' earlier inquiry into what the
committee was trying to accomplish, Mr. Croxton said, "You can't go
any place if you don't know where you are going." He believed that
ANILCA spells out what should be done - providing for those
dependent upon natural resources and continued use of those
resources . During a shortage, priority use is established. Mr.
Croxton did not favor two different subsistences regarding whether
there was a shortage or not. He pointed out that there are four
use categories currently in statute: commercial use, sport use,
subsistence use, and personal use. Mr. Croxton suggested review of
the personal use category to provide for the resource for those who
cannot obtain what is necessary under sport regulations. Personal
use could be utilized in almost all cases except in times of
emergency.
With regard to the proposal for regional councils, MR. CROXTON
believed it to be unworkable and just another layer. The advisory
committee program is in place and working well, therefore he
suggested leaving the advisory committee program intact. Speaking
from experience, he noted that the boards, in particular the Board
of Fisheries, is overloaded. Mr. Croxton doubted that the boards
could handle the responsibilities as set forth in this act.
Furthermore, he did not believe that ADF&G or the boards have the
time or expertise to determine the criteria for use. In
conclusion, Mr. Croxton requested the opportunity to address this
legislation and upcoming versions again.
CHAIRMAN GREEN affirmed that Mr. Croxton would have the opportunity
to address this legislation again.
Number 1015
ROBERT HALL, Member, Houston Chamber of Commerce, thanked the
committee for its efforts in tackling subsistence. Mr. Hall noted
that most of the intense opposition of federal management comes
from the commercial fishing lobby while most subsistence users are
dissatisfied with state management. In the Matanuska-Susitna
Valley, state management has been disastrous and inequitable. Mr.
Hall said the power of the commercial fishing lobby is illustrated
in the changes made in the current version of HB 406. The CS HB
406(RES) contained provisions allowing Alaska residents a
preference over other users and during shortage there would be a
regional priority. Version X eliminates the preference for Alaska
residents. Mr. Hall asked, "Who'd object to Alaskans having a
preference to feed their families over other users of fish?
Commercial fish lobby. Why should I, as a resident of the Mat-Su,
support any efforts to limit my opportunities in other areas of the
state when the state short changes nonpreferred commercial fishers
in the Upper Cook Inlet."
CHAIRMAN GREEN interjected that there is a residency requirement
for subsistence.
MR. HALL clarified that he was referring to the original version of
HB 406 which contained a provision stating that those eating fish
in Alaska have a priority over commercial uses.
CHAIRMAN GREEN asked if Mr. Hall was referring to the version that
was moved out of the House Resources Standing Committee.
MR. HALL replied yes, and emphasized that his comments were
directed toward the elimination of CS HB 406(RES) which was opposed
by the commercial fish lobby. He explained that CS HB 406(RES)
allowed all Alaskans to feed their families and during a shortage
a super priority would be granted in rural areas. That provision
has been eliminated in Version X. Mr. Hall opposed the elimination
of that provision. Mr. Hall indicated that it seemed as if there
had been some favoring of the commercial fish lobby.
Number 0876
CHAIRMAN GREEN negated that the commercial fish lobby had been
favored in any way.
MR. HALL continued by emphasizing that fish and game are part of
the lifestyle for many Alaskans in the Matanuska-Susitna Valley and
encompasses who they are and why they live in the Matanuska-Susitna
Valley. There is nothing in Version X that addresses the needs of
the Natives of Chikaloon or Eklutna or the Alaskans in the
Matanuska-Susitna Valley. Mr. Hall urged the committee to
reinstate the provision allowing all Alaskans who wish to feed
their families a preference not a priority. With regard to the
constitutional amendment, Mr. Hall suggested that there should be
a preference based on the proximity of where the fish is killed and
consumed not where the person lives. Mr. Hall reiterated the need
to reinstate the provision allowing all Alaskans to feed their
families.
Number 0720
TED HAMILTON, testifying via teleconference from Emmonak, informed
the committee that he worked for the National Resource Field for
the Emmonak Tribal Council. He mentioned the Bush conferences that
used to occur when Native issues were on the agenda. Mr. Hamilton
indicated that Alaska Natives are frustrated and feel as if they
are not being heard or represented effectively. He suggested that
Native leaders present should relay information to their people.
Alaskan Natives prefer to handle their own problems, the state is
too slow. He noted that Native Alaskans have established hunting
tables, codes, values, bag limits, and methods of harvesting game
as well as harvesting equipment which the state did not review.
The state made the laws and imposed them on Native Alaskans. Mr.
Hamilton emphasized that until the state recognizes that the state
hunting codes and ordinances do not coincide with Native codes, the
state rules will be meaningless to Native Alaskans. Subsistence
does not have a real dollar value, but rather subsistence has a
tremendous cultural value. Subsistence means so much more than
merely harvesting and eating from the land. Mr. Hamilton said, "We
do not only hunt because we have to preserve our culture, feed
ourselves, teach our youth, eat the most nutritious and delicious
food around, but because we want to. I would rather eat a
ptarmigan than a chicken any day." Mr. Hamilton maintained that
comparing subsistence to welfare was an uneducated comparison.
CHAIRMAN GREEN interjected that no one present had referred to
subsistence as welfare and stated that was not the intent.
Number 400
MR. HAMILTON continued by saying that the tie Alaskan Natives have
to the land is deeply rooted in the culture. For example,
subsistence is so important that there are dances to show respect
for the various animals. Alaskan Natives work with nature and do
not attempt to dominate over nature. Long ago, the first
immigrants to the area were taught them the right way by the
Natives. The immigrants did not listen, lost patience, became
greedy and began killing Natives. Alaskan Natives continue to
teach the right way to live with nature. He mentioned that the
killing of the buffalo by the federal government in order to weaken
the hold of the Natives in America worked. Mr. Hamilton said, "Is
the state going to do this with our subsistence (indisc.)? I know
the state wants to weaken the tribes of Alaska. Is HB 406 your way
of doing it?"
CHAIRMAN GREEN requested that Mr. Hamilton keep his comments to the
specifics of HB 406.
MR. HAMILTON suggested that Native preference be top priority over
all other preferences. The annual income level of $35,000 seems
low; it would be used quickly in rural Alaska for bills and
immediate needs. A person would starve without the ability to
harvest subsistence. He suggested that the annual income level
criterion be higher, perhaps twice as much.
Number 288
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT said, "It does seem to me that some of the new
criteria, when we talk about 20 percent or less in that poverty
level, starts to get it back into a characterization of this as a
something that is done in times of poverty, a welfare type system
rather than a lifestyle to be protected. So it -- not completely,
but I did not think you were completely off base. On Version R you
might've been, but I think Version X tries to bring some of those
back in.... So we shouldn't consider this a welfare type system."
CHAIRMAN GREEN reiterated that the committee had tried to utilize
the same criteria as ANILCA for defining nonsubsistence areas which
does not seem to be the appropriate path. Chairman Green stated
that another avenue through ADF&G is being attempted.
MR. HAMILTON informed the committee that he did not have a copy of
Version X.
CHAIRMAN GREEN reiterated that another version would be provided in
a couple of days. Chairman Green continued the teleconference
testimony by going to Ekwok, but it had dropped off the line.
Number 0126
KNOWLAND SILAS, via teleconference from Minto, informed the
committee that he sat on the Minto Village Council and "has been on
Fish & Game (indisc.) between Minto and Nenana for 18 years or
more." He indicated that he understood the subsistence issue very
well. Mr. Silas referred to Section 16.16.030 when noting that
Minto sits on a road. If subsistence was taken away from those in
Minto, there would be a mass migration to Fairbanks. Mr. Silas
mentioned the timber industry on the Tanana River.
TAPE 98-51, SIDE A
Number 0022
MR. SILAS discussed the Native Alaskans historical dependence on
fish and the state permit system. In Minto, the Tier II permit is
in place. If a permit is lost and not turned in, then points are
lost. Once you start losing points, soon you could lose all your
permits. Mr. Silas said, "That's not the way to manage fish and
game. If they take all our permits and give them to the people
from Fairbanks, then we as Natives, we have to have our customary
and traditional use of these fish and game to survive. Our culture
has to survive." Mr. Silas related a story from the time when
federal management was in control. During federal management, a
man from Beaver who got too close to a beaver den he was checking
was sent to jail in Fairbanks by US Fish & Wildlife. Mr. Silas
described the choice between state and federal management as
choosing between "the lesser of two evils." However, he did say
that Native Alaskans had not been treated fairly by the state. Mr.
Silas said that outsiders should be happy with the road to Minto
because the people of Minto share the ducks with the outsiders.
Number 250
MIKE JACKSON, testifying via teleconference from Kake, informed the
committee that he was a Trust Officer on the Kake IRA Council. He
noted that Kake is primarily a subsistence community that is
connected by a ferry that may be by once a week. Kake relies
heavily on commuter air services out of Juneau. With regard to
using a connection to the Alaska Marine Highway as a criterion for
subsistence, Mr. Jackson did not believe that determined what the
people in an area relied upon. Mr. Jackson indicated his objection
to that criterion.
CHAIRMAN GREEN acknowledged that many had objected to the
transportation criterion and believed that criterion would be
eliminated.
MR. JACKSON referred to the federal poverty income level criterion
when pointing out that traditional and customary gathering is the
primary reason many choose to live in small communities such as
Kake. He emphasized that Kake residents rely on gathered food by
over 50 percent which is well documented by ADF&G for 1987 to 1997.
He mentioned the rituals associated with gathered foods. Mr.
Jackson stated, "I'd rather have the ferry system taken out of here
rather than the community losing its ability to collect subsistence
foods from around us." Mr. Jackson requested more time to comment
on Version X.
CHAIRMAN GREEN pointed out that a new version is forthcoming and
that there would be time then for further comment. Chairman Green
recognized that there would be some conflicts with ANILCA.
MR. JACKSON requested that this legislation would be distributed to
the Organized Village of Kake. CHAIRMAN GREEN agreed.
Number 0650
DALE BONDURANT, via teleconference in Kenai, said that he would be
addressing the constitutional amendment. Mr. Bondurant supported
a preference among beneficial users not a prescribed exclusionary
class of priority/preference users. He indicated that personal,
consumptive use should be the highest use. Mr. Bondurant said, "An
amendment to the constitution that impinges upon these rights, I
oppose. And charge that it is, in itself, unconstitutional and
cannot be resolved of the outcome of a vote. I charge that the
Judicial Committee has a special responsibility to examine each
proposed bill as the legality of its relationship to the
constitution and statutory results. When it becomes necessary to
amend the constitution, it would require an extraordinary
examination to what is the legality and purpose and results. I
charge that the Judicial Committee must be especially cognizant to
how this amendment affects all related protections of the present
state constitution and even most important, the US Constitution.
This is the way a constitutional democracy is supposed to work."
Mr. Bondurant emphasized the need for the committee to seek legal
advice in order that any amendments are clear and the public is
fully informed of the entire ramifications of the proposed
legislation or amendment.
MR. BONDURANT asked if the committee was requiring legal opinions
regarding the total effects on the related clauses and protections
of the Alaska Constitution and the US Constitution. Mr. Bondurant
listed the following areas of the Alaska Constitution that would be
effected: Article 1 Section 1, Article 8 Sections 1-4 and 13-17.
Those areas effected in the US Constitution would be Articles and
Amendments 4, 5, 10, 11, 14, 15. He stated, "The Alaska Supreme
Court stated that the state control merely for the sake of control
is a poor goal when it impinges on the anti-exclusionary clauses of
the constitution."
Number 0823
MR. BONDURANT discussed the White Act of 1924 which was to protect
and conserve fisheries of the United States and all waters of
Alaska. The Secretary of Commerce was to regulate the fisheries
and no exclusive right of fisheries would be granted. Furthermore,
no US citizen could be "denied the right to take, prepare, cure,
preserve fish and shell fish in any area in Alaska where fishing
is permitted by the Secretary of Commerce." Mr. Bondurant
mentioned that some believe these rights were taken away under the
statehood compact. Mr. Bondurant said, "In this decision, it says
we are forced to conclude that no compact as to fishing rights was
formed between the State of Alaska and the United States by the
second Section, except in 12 Article 12 of the Alaska Constitution
and the responsive portion of Section 4 of the Alaska Statehood."
MR. BONDURANT emphasized that a citizen's constitutional right
cannot be infringed upon merely because a majority of the people
choose it to be. A state cannot be viewed as an unconnected
sovereign power. Further, no restrictions can be imposed not found
in that state's constitution. Mr. Bondurant mentioned Justice
Marshal's opinion regarding this matter. He read the following to
from Judge Robert Fork(ph), "The United States was found as
Madisonian system which means that it is contains two opposing
principles that must be continually reconciled. The first
principle is self government which means that in the light areas of
life, majorities are entitled to rule, if they wish, simply because
they are majorities. The second is there are nonetheless some
things majorities must not do to minorities. Some areas of life in
which the individual must be free of majority rule. The dilemma is
that neither majorities or minorities can be trusted to define the
proper spirit of democratic authority and individual liberty. To
place the power in one or the other would risk either tyranny by
the majority or tyranny by the minority. Such differences can only
be resolved by resort to a neutral written principle, the
constitution. We should first look at the text and understand and
manifest in the words used by the framers."
CHAIRMAN GREEN asked Mr. Bondurant if he was reading his testimony
and if so, could he fax the testimony to the committee.
MR. BONDURANT said that he would stop, although he did not believe
the committee would read his testimony. Mr. Bondurant emphasized
that the Judiciary Committee had one important responsibility: to
address these constitutional provisions. He asked when the
committee would report on the effects this legislation would have
on all provisions of Alaska's Constitution as well as the US
Constitution.
Number 1149
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER asked Mr. Bondurant to refer to page 3, line
14 of HJR 66 which indicates that most of Mr. Bondurant's points
are covered in a lawsuit filed by the Legislature. If the state
prevails in this lawsuit, the statutes and constitutional
amendments will be null and void. To state that there has been no
response to those points is not true. Since there is no assurance
that the lawsuit will be won, Representative Porter did not want to
place all his eggs in that basket.
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT informed Mr. Bondurant that he had asked many
if any lawsuit had overruled this on the grounds of equal
protection. He asked Mr. Bondurant if he had heard of any such
suit. Representative Croft pointed out that the McDowell case did
not rely on equal protection, but rather the specific clauses of
the Alaska Constitution. He did not believe a suit based on equal
protection would win.
MR. BONDURANT explained that in the McDowell case, there is
language that says that a number of authorities have over turned
territorial residency as a provision of allowing discrimination.
Further, within McDowell Judge Moore(ph) says that this is an equal
protection case. Mr. Bondurant stressed that legislators have a
responsibility to ensure that everyone in the state as well as the
state itself is treated equally.
Number 1323
THEO MATTHEWS, President, United Fisherman of Alaska(UFA), and
Chair of the Subsistence Committee of UFA, testified via
teleconference from Kasilof. Mr. Matthews noted that he had
testified on HB 406 twice. His first testimony emphasized the
legal ramifications. His second testimony was with Alaskans
Together and stressed the need to obtain an ANILCA amendment
clarifying the meaning and intent of the law. With regard to the
latest version of HB 406, Mr. Matthews suggested that the current
Alaska Statutes be used and amended. Therefore, people would be
clear on the changes and process.
With respect to Version X, MR. MATTHEWS stated that Section
16.16.030 (b) is controversial and seems to be a policy call for
the legislature. He did not believe that Section 16.16.030 was
consistent with the intent of ANILCA, furthermore, the intent is
unclear. Mr. Matthews did not believe it practical. The "all
Alaskans" policy is not a good policy. Mr. Matthews said that
rural preference will be better for more Alaskans in the long run.
The concept under subsection (b) is a new concept and he is unsure
as to how it would work. Mr. Matthews expressed concern with the
possibility of the board abusing their responsibility to the point
of eliminating any specific stock from ever being a subsistence
use. The last sentence of subsection (b) is much improved and
close to the intent of ANILCA. Subsection (c) is a new criteria
while different than the ANILCA criteria, the intent is the same.
Number 1570
MR. MATTHEWS noted that regional advisory committees was included
in Version X. He pointed out that Section 6 mentions traditional
barter, but not customary trade while its definition is found under
Section 9 of subsistence. He inquired as to why the language "by
a resident domicile in a rural area" was removed under the
definitions of subsistence fishing and hunting. Although Mr.
Matthews did not believe it to be the intent, he voiced concern
that at some point nonresidents could be allowed to subsistence
fish and hunt. In response to Chairman Green, Mr. Matthews said
that he had read HJR 66 that morning.
CHAIRMAN GREEN pointed out that HJR 66 contains several
requirements that ANILCA be changed. He asked if Mr. Matthews had
an opinion on that.
MR. MATTHEWS believed that if the rural preference was not amended
too aggressively, the federal government would be open to change.
The federal government is sensitive to the state's rights issue on
state lands and waters. Mr. Matthews noted that sections 7-11 are
new and he has not had the time to analyze those sections. The
first six sections seem to be from SJR 21 which Mr. Matthews did
not find unreasonable.
Number 1720
TOM LAKOSH, via teleconference in Anchorage, said that he wanted to
address Representative Croft's question regarding equal protection.
Mr. Lakosh referred to the Kenaitze case in which equal access was
addressed. Equal access is tantamount to equal protection
regarding personal use in nonsubsistence areas as opposed to
subsistence. During that time the supreme court would not take up
the issue because the personal use regulations were the same as the
prior subsistence regulations. Mr. Lakosh emphasized that is no
longer the case and he believed an equal protection question is
posed by HB 406. He explained that subsistence rights of Alaskans
are diminished which would require the state provide due process,
Article 8 Section 16, for the removal of the rights of land and
fish and game there on.
MR. LAKOSH discussed Katie John's suit. He explained that she
filed for suit because her common use rights under state law were
not violated. However, Ms. John felt that federal protection was
the same issue. If Ms. John had been granted common use rights,
there would have been a question of whether she should seek federal
protection. Has ADF&G properly regulated the common use fisheries
and game, is the question the committee should address. Mr. Lakosh
did not believe such regulation had occurred. To whom will the
fish and game be allocated, once people are excluded from
subsistence rights. Mr. Lakosh said that no part of HB 406 could
be deemed constitutional due to the constitutional provisions for
equal protection, due process and equal access. He indicated that
the provisions were arbitrary. Mr. Lakosh emphasized the need for
the committee to review constitutional history in order to
understand why the provisions were included. He charged that the
provisions were included because the commercial fisheries had
obliterated the stocks. Mr. Lakosh reiterated the arbitrariness of
the legislation and stated, "It's absolutely insulting that a
judiciary committee would ever consider this." Mr. Lakosh echoed
Mr. Bondurant's comments that the committee has the responsibility
to find the consistencies with applicable constitution and
statutory provisions. There seems to be no effort to distribute
the resources equitable among those, Alaskan residents, who have
the constitutional preference for use. Mr. Lakosh stated that
there is no equal protection or access and felt that HB 406 is
overly restrictive and punitive against residents. There is a need
to ensure that people are provided common use under all
circumstances, not just during shortage. Further, the shortage
circumstance does not appear in Version X.
MR. LAKOSH expressed the need to provide a correlation between the
need of the right to use the resource and legislation setting
guidelines for apportionment of fish and game use. There is no
equitable apportionment. He appreciated the problem with ANILCA.
Mr. Lakosh suggested that the committee establish the superior,
beneficial use of subsistence as in the first version of HB 406 and
equitably establish allocation guidelines for fish and game in
order to protect the rights of all Alaskan citizens.
Number 2120
MARY BISHOP, via teleconference from Fairbanks, began with the
following quote from Senator Stevens regarding the Venetie
decision, "We are a small family and there should be no
distinctions between us." She was happy that the committee was
using dependency, but was disappointed in the previous comments
which indicate that path may be changed. Ms. Bishop commented that
subparagraph (A) on page 2, line 7 seemed to mean the per capita
annual income of $35,000 which is fairly high. Perhaps, what is
meant is per household. Ms. Bishop agreed with Mr. Matthews
regarding the confusion of Section 16.16.030. Furthermore,
subsection (c) on page 2, is not clear either. She believed that
the criteria in subsection (c) is what the subsistence division
currently uses. Ms. Bishop urged the committee to clarify the
language in the allocation section. One of the difficulties with
ANILCA is its vagueness.
MS. BISHOP did not disagree with Ms. Pete's comment that
subsistence may exist outside of the areas that would qualify under
the dependency criterion. Subsistence use exists throughout the
state. As Representative James pointed out, the question is, "Who
should have a harvest priority?" Ms. Bishop indicated agreement
with Representative Berkowitz' comment that subsistence is a way of
life. However, Ms. Bishop asked, "Where else in law do we give
certain groups of people special legal access to resources because
of their way of life?" She explained that the legislature is
considering whether or not to take away someone's harvest priority
not their subsistence or food. She said that she did not want
federal management, but it will happen through federal courts. Ms.
Bishop believes that Senator Stevens has Alaska over a barrel, not
the federal government. Senator Stevens as well as the rest of
Alaska's congressional delegation need guidance from the
legislature. In conclusion, Ms. Bishop restated Senator Stevens'
statement, "We are a small family and there should be no
distinction between us."
Number 2455
DICK BISHOP, via teleconference from Fairbanks, believed that the
committee was headed in the right direction by reducing the pool of
qualified subsistence users. Mr. Bishop noted that all sides of
the issue have voiced dissatisfaction with the criteria.
TAPE 98-51, SIDE B
Number 0028
MR. BISHOP pointed out that the supreme court, based upon the
studies by the Division of Subsistence, found that subsistence
existed among both rural and urban users. Furthermore, a priority
based on individual characteristics would be less invasive of the
common use and equal opportunity provisions of the constitution.
Mr. Bishop agreed with Representative Berkowitz' concern with
eliminating someone's subsistence lifestyle merely because of the
presence of a road. He believed that the commercial fisherman of
long ago are being exchanged with the subsistence users of today
which could result in catering to one particular interest group
rather than to the general interest of Alaskans. Mr. Bishop
disputed Mr. Tillion's contention that it would be a rarity to have
a court case due to federal court oversight. During the state's
compliance with federal law, 1986-1989, there were dozens of cases
in the court. Further, he believed that capitulating to the
federal law and changing the constitution would place the issue in
the 9th Circuit Court.
MR. BISHOP said that it would behoove the legislature to establish
criteria extending the same basic rights to pursue the resources to
all Alaskans. In conclusion Mr. Bishop stated, "If the state
conforms to the federal law, we will forfeit any legal basis for
future arguments about state versus federal laws regarding equal
protection, common use of the state's right to manage fish and
game."
Number 0210
DONALD WESTLUND, via teleconference from Ketchikan, agreed with
Representative James as well as Ms. Bishop's comments regarding the
need to establish a harvest priority. With regard to Ms. George's
comment that she needed this priority due to her lack of money,
Mr. Westlund concluded that the situation is a welfare issue. The
situation comes down to the fact that people need the harvest
resource priority for economic reasons. Rural should be defined.
Mr. Westlund said that each work draft has included good provisions
and good ideas have been presented from all sides. Mr. Westlund
turned to HJR 66. Paragraphs 1-12 under Section 29 are possible
items for negotiation.
Number 0350
BEN HASTINGS, via teleconference from Ketchikan, agreed with Ms.
Bishop's comments. He informed the committee that he had been
involved with the problem of ANILCA convergence with the state
constitution for about a year and a half. Mr. Hastings said, "I am
totally convinced of one thing and that is: a deal is a deal."
There is a deal, the state constitution and the statehood compact.
Alaskans were promised the right to manage the state's fish and
game as well as equal access to the resources. Mr. Hastings was
pleased that the Legislative Council filed a lawsuit to test
whether the federal government has the right to implement Title
VIII of ANILCA as well as to take over Alaska's fish and game
management on December 1, 1998. Mr. Hastings expressed concern
with the discussion of changing the Alaska State Constitution
before the outcome of that lawsuit is determined. He understood
that the court could hand down a decision as early as July 4, 1998.
MR. HASTINGS pointed out that the legislators took an oath to
protect the Constitution of the State of Alaska. The federal
government should be told to stay out of Alaska's business. Mr.
Hastings supported the Alaska State Constitution. What is the
problem with eliminating the word "subsistence" and replacing it
with "personal use." The use of the language "personal use" does
not violate Alaska's constitution.
Number 0440
MR. HASTINGS informed the committee that he had a resolution from
the Ketchikan Gateway Borough, the Ketchikan Sports and Wildlife
Club, District 1 Republican Party, and the Ketchikan Rod & Gun Club
Trap Division. All of these groups agree that the committee should
develop a plan treating all Alaskans equally. Mr. Hastings stated
that during a poll on the weekend of July 4, 1997, just under 5,000
Ketchikan voters did not want federal management of Alaska's fish
and game. In closing, Mr. Hastings reiterated the charge of the
committee to protect and defend the state constitution.
Number 0500
STAN BLOOM, via teleconference from Ketchikan, stated, "This is the
first place I've ever been that we wanted to change the
constitution cause it treats us all too darned equal." If it is
necessary to change the constitution, then the change should result
in treating all Alaskans equally in a personal use situation. Mr.
Bloom informed the committee that in 1978 a subsistence law was
passed. During floor discussion, there was assurance that those
dip netting in Chitna would be protected. However, in 1984, those
people were reclassified to personal use and the allocation cut
from 120,000 to 60,000 fish. There was such rigorous rule that
3,000 people stopped fishing the first year. Further, it took 14
years to receive an allocation of 100,000 fish. Mr. Bloom stressed
that the preceding is an example of how former subsistence users
were treated under state law. He also pointed out that the state
is currently using the customary and traditional determination to
deny the Chitna Natives from fishing in their traditional area.
The state utilizes the customary and traditional determination to
deny rights rather than protect those rights. The state does not
have a record of treating people fairly. Mr. Bloom emphasized that
a fair constitution should not be changed in order to allow an
unfair ANILCA. He asked, "Why would we want to adopt an Arizona
law into the Alaska Constitution?" Mr. Bloom suggested changing
the federal law.
In response to Chairman Green, MR. BLOOM said that he had read
HJR 66. Mr. Bloom stressed that once the amendment to the
constitution is passed, the legislators can pass any law. Once the
constitution is changed that is it. Mr. Bloom indicated that the
constitution should not be changed to allow rural priority. He
suggested that Section 19 be changed to address the taking of fish
and wildlife for subsistence based on proximity not rural versus
urban. Mr. Bloom did not believe the state could fairly administer
ANILCA which is unfair and violates the Alaska State Constitution.
He proposed that ANILCA probably violates the Constitution with
regards to the commerce clause. The commerce clause has never
allowed other states or the federal government the authority to
discriminate using rural versus urban as a basis for that
discrimination. Mr. Bloom believed that rural versus urban was
unconstitutional under the Constitution. Mr. Bloom agreed with Mr.
Bondurant in that the Judiciary Committee should not force a
discriminatory law.
Number 0780
CHAIRMAN GREEN announced that the teleconference had been
concluded. Chairman Green adjourned the meeting at 6:25 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|