Legislature(1997 - 1998)
09/10/1997 09:15 AM House RES
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HOUSE RESOURCES STANDING COMMITTEE
September 10, 1997
Bethel, Alaska
9:15 a.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Bill Hudson, Co-Chairman
Representative Fred Dyson
Representative Joe Green
Representative William K. ("Bill") Williams
Representative Irene Nicholia
Representative Reggie Joule
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Scott Ogan, Co-Chairman
Representative Beverly Masek, Vice Chair
Representative Ramona Barnes
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
Public Subsistence Hearing
PREVIOUS ACTION
No previous action to record
WITNESS REGISTER
REPRESENTATIVE IVAN IVAN
Alaska State Legislature
Capitol Building, Room 418
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Telephone: (907) 465-4942
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided opening remarks.
SENATOR LYMAN HOFFMAN
Alaska State Legislature
Capitol Building, Room 7
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Telephone: (907) 465-4453
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided opening remarks.
MARY C. PETE, Director
Division of Subsistence
Department of Fish and Game
P.O. Box 25526
Juneau, Alaska 99802-5526
Telephone: (907) 465-2066
(907) 543-3107 (Seasonal office - Bethel)
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided comments from the department
and task force; answered questions.
TOM WARNER
P.O. Box 1258
Bethel, Alaska 99559
Telephone: (907) 543-2554
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified regarding task force
recommendations.
ANTONE ANVIL, Traditional Chief
Orutsararmuit Native Council
P.O. Box 1924
Bethel, Alaska 99559
Telephone: (907) 543-2534
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified regarding subsistence.
BILLY McCANN
P.O. Box 1924
Bethel, Alaska 99559
Telephone: (907) 543-2788
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified regarding subsistence.
MYRON P. NANENG, SR., President
Association of Village Council Presidents, Incorporated
P.O. Box 219
Bethel, Alaska 99559
Telephone: (907) 543-7301
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified regarding subsistence.
ARTHUR LAKE, Tribal Administrator
Native Village of Kwigillingok
P.O. Box 49
Kwigillingok, Alaska 99622
Telephone: (907) 588-8114
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified regarding subsistence.
OWEN BEAVER
P.O. Box 75
Kwigillingok, Alaska 99622
Telephone: (907) 588-8229
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified regarding subsistence.
PETE JOHN
Native Village of Kwigillingok
P.O. Box 49
Kwigillingok, Alaska 99622
Telephone: (907) 588-8114
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified regarding subsistence.
CHRIS COOKE
P.O. Box 555
Bethel, Alaska 99559
Telephone: (907) 543-3107
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified regarding subsistence.
JOHN ABRAHAM
(No address provided)
Toksook Bay, Alaska 99637
Telephone: (907) 427-7751
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified regarding subsistence.
JOHN P. JONES
P.O. Box 231
Bethel, Alaska 99559
(No telephone number provided)
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified regarding Native Subsistence Summit
resolution and other issues.
JOAN HAMILTON
P.O. Box 1275
Bethel, Alaska 99559-1275
Telephone: (907) 543-3454
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified regarding subsistence.
JOHN WHITE
P.O. Box 190
Bethel, Alaska 99599
Telephone: (907) 543-2926
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified regarding subsistence.
FRANK CHARLES
P.O. Box 36
Bethel, Alaska 99559
Telephone: (907) 543-3192
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified regarding subsistence.
WILLIE KASAYULIE, Tribal Services Director
Akiachak Native Community
Akiachak Indian Reorganization Act Council
P.O. Box 70
Akiachak, Alaska 99551
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified regarding subsistence.
RAYMOND TEELUK
c/o Kotlik Traditional Council
P.O. Box 20096
Kotlik, Alaska 99620
Telephone: (907) 899-4326
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified regarding subsistence.
ROBERT OKITKUN, Director
Kotlik Yupik Corporation
P.O. Box 20207
Kotlik, Alaska 99620
Telephone: (907) 899-4014
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified regarding subsistence.
JACKSON LOMACK, Vice Chairman
Akiachak IRA Council
c/o Akiachak Native Community
P.O. Box 70
Akiachak, Alaska 99551
Telephone: (907) 825-4626
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified regarding subsistence.
JOHN GEORGE, Tribal Administrator
Nightmute Traditional Council
P.O. Box 90021
Nightmute, Alaska 99690
Telephone: (907) 647-6215
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified regarding subsistence.
HERMAN MORGAN
P.O. Box 78
Aniak, Alaska 99557
Telephone: (907) 675-4393
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified regarding subsistence.
FRANK FOX, Natural Resources Director
Native Village of Kwinhagak
(No address provided)
Quinhagak, Alaska 99655
Telephone: (907) 556-8350
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified regarding subsistence.
PAUL BEEBE, Member
Quinhagak IRA Council
P.O. Box 154
Quinhagak, Alaska 99655
Telephone: (907) 556-8167
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified regarding subsistence.
JOHN SHARP
P.O. Box 126
Quinhagak, Alaska 99655
Telephone: (907) 556-8615
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified regarding subsistence.
DAVID KAGANAK
c/o Scammon Bay Traditional Council
P.O. Box 126
Scammon Bay, Alaska 99662
Telephone: (907) 558-5425
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified regarding subsistence.
CARL DOCK
Kipnuk Traditional Council
P.O. Box 57
Kipnuk, Alaska 99614
Telephone: (907) 896-5515
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified regarding subsistence.
NICK LUPIE
c/o Tuntutuliak Traditional Council
P.O. Box WTL
Tuntutuliak, Alaska 99680
Telephone: (907)
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified regarding subsistence.
PETER ELACHIK
P.O. Box 20015
Kotlik, Alaska 99620-0015
Telephone: (907) 899-4459
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified regarding subsistence.
WILLIE KAMKOFF
(No address provided)
Kotlik, Alaska 99620
Telephone: (907) 899-4459
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified regarding subsistence.
MYRA OLSEN, Chief
Egegik Tribal Council
P.O. Box 74
Egegik, Alaska 99579
Telephone: (907) 233-2424
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified regarding subsistence.
NOAH ANDREW
P.O. Box 61
Tuluksak, Alaska 99679-0061
Telephone: (907) 695-6420
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified regarding subsistence.
CORRINE OLSEN
P.O. Box 152
Egegik, Alaska 99579
(No telephone number provided)
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified regarding subsistence.
JAMES GUY, SR.
P.O. Box 123
Kwethluk, Alaska 99621
Telephone: (907) 757-6312
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified regarding subsistence.
JOHNNY EVAN
P.O. Box 1814
Bethel, Alaska 99539
Telephone: (907) 543-2317
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified regarding subsistence.
TAD MILLER
P.O. Box 122
Bethel, Alaska 99539
Telephone: (907) 534-5600
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified regarding subsistence.
FRANK CHIHGLIAK
P.O. Box 1381
Bethel, Alaska 99539
Telephone: (907) 543-2472
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified regarding subsistence.
PASCHAL AFCAN
P.O. Box 1866
Bethel, Alaska 99539
Telephone: (907) 543-2024
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified regarding subsistence.
DICK ANDREW
P.O. Box 112
Bethel, Alaska 99539
Telephone: (907) 543-2105
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified regarding subsistence.
JOBE ABRAHAM
P.O. Box 10
Chefornak, Alaska 99561
Telephone: (907) 876-8893
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified regarding subsistence.
MATTHEW NICOLAI, President
Calista Corporation
601 West 5th Avenue
Anchorage, Alaska 99502
Telephone: (907) 279-5516
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified regarding subsistence.
JOSEPH ALEXIE, President
Tuluksak IRA Council
P.O. Box 135
Tuluksak, Alaska 99679
Telephone: (907) 695-6420
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified regarding subsistence.
FRED SMITH
General Delivery
Napaskiat, Alaska 99559
Telephone: (907) 737-7143
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified regarding subsistence.
MOSES PETER
Village of Tuluksak
P.O. Box 57
Tuluksak, Alaska 99679
Telephone: (907) 695-6902
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified regarding subsistence.
ANDY SHARP
P.O. Box 26
Quinhagak, Alaska 99655
Telephone: (907) 556-8126
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified regarding subsistence.
DARIO NOTTI
P.O. Box 2175
Bethel, Alaska 99559
Telephone: (907) 543-3072
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified regarding subsistence.
ANASTASIA HOFFMAN
P.O. Box 2374
Bethel, Alaska 99559
Telephone: (907) 543-2141
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified regarding subsistence.
BONNIE KOWCHEE
P.O. Box 1724
Bethel, Alaska 99559
Telephone: (907) 543-5890
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified regarding subsistence.
JAMES A. PETER
P.O. Box 491
Bethel, Alaska 99559-0491
Telephone: (907) 543-2627
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified regarding subsistence.
GARY VANASSE
P.O. Box 1544
Bethel, Alaska 99559
Telephone: (907) 543-3031
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified regarding subsistence.
NICK O. NICK
(No address provided)
Bethel, Alaska 99559
Telephone: (907) 543-9969
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified regarding subsistence.
KATHLEEN POLTY
P.O. Box 5043
Pilot Station, 99650
Telephone: (907) 549-3211
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified regarding subsistence.
ROBERT NICK
P.O. Box 49
Nunapitchuk, Alaska 99641
Telephone: (907) 527-5127
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified regarding subsistence.
JOHN PHILLIP
P.O. Box 5031
Kongiganak, Alaska 99559-5031
Telephone: (907) 557-5227
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified regarding subsistence.
GREGORY ANELON
(No address provided)
Newhalen, Alaska 99606
Telephone: (907) 527-1317
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified regarding subsistence.
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 97-53, SIDE A
Number 001
CO-CHAIRMAN BILL HUDSON called the House Resources Standing
Committee meeting to order at 9:15 a.m. at the Yupiit Piciryarait
Cultural Center in Bethel. Members present at the call to order
were Representatives Hudson, Dyson, Green, Williams, Nicholia and
Joule. Interpreters in Bethel were Joseph ("Trim") Nick, the
primary interpreter for the meeting, 543-5042 or 543-3521; John
Active, 543-3704; and Lillian Michael of KYUK Radio, who translated
for the radio audience.
PUBLIC SUBSISTENCE HEARING
CO-CHAIRMAN HUDSON welcomed participants and listeners. He
introduced committee members and noted that the House Judiciary
Standing Committee, chaired by Representative Green, is one of the
next two committees that must hear this issue before official
action can be taken by the legislature. He then introduced Senator
Lyman Hoffman and Representative Ivan Ivan.
CO-CHAIRMAN HUDSON advised listeners that the Speaker of the House
had offered the assistance of Ted Popely and Ron Somerville, who
had both worked closely with the task force. The task force report
is not out; it is only a recommendation at this time. Co-Chairman
Hudson commented that although he calls it the "Governor's task
force," he is not certain the Governor wants credit for it. He
noted that Mary Pete would discuss the task force recommendations.
Number 055
CO-CHAIRMAN HUDSON acknowledged the assistance of Amy Daugherty,
legislative assistant to Representative Alan Austerman, who was
acting as committee aide that day, and he thanked Nelson Davies of
the Bethel Legislative Information Office (LIO) for putting this
hearing together.
CO-CHAIRMAN HUDSON reminded participants that materials were
available at the back of the room. They'd tried to put together
comments to direct testifiers' input towards issues that the task
force had determined to be important. He stated, "Our goal here
today is to not tell you what we think, not tell you how we believe
the subsistence ought to be handled, but to hear you and find out
from you, the real Alaskans who live in this region, including all
those who are listening from the villages and who will be given an
opportunity to testify as we progress on through this hearing."
Co-Chairman Hudson emphasized the informality of the hearing.
Although lifting the strict time limit, he encouraged participants
to keep comments to around five minutes. He called upon
Representative Ivan to offer opening remarks.
Number 086
REPRESENTATIVE IVAN IVAN welcomed the House Resources Standing
Committee, saying subsistence is near and dear to the hearts of the
people in that area. He explained, "It's a complex issue in terms
of legal terminology and how the issue will be drafted or
considered for discussion, but very, very simple when you live it
and were born to this issue before us. It's very simple as we live
in our communities and as we're taught by our elders to continue
the tradition on. And over the years, this issue has been
discussed. It's been authorized in the state statutes and found to
be unconstitutional. So, therefore we're back here again to
consider the issue before us."
REPRESENTATIVE IVAN referred to the federal government and said
community members look to the Alaska National Interest Lands
Conservation Act (ANILCA) as an "insurance to continue the
lifestyle that we were born to and enjoy in this area, and that's
the hunting and fishing livelihood that our folks continue to do."
He invited the committee to consider a hearing in Dillingham, a hub
for Southwest Alaska, which has a similar constituency and similar
communities. He thanked committee members for traveling from their
own districts for this hearing.
CO-CHAIRMAN HUDSON invited Senator Hoffman to comment as well.
Number 124
SENATOR LYMAN HOFFMAN specified that his comments were to the
committee members. He said that while subsistence is a critical
issue, a bigger issue before the state is retention of the right to
manage fish and game in Alaska. Whether or not they resolve that
question at the state level, there will continue to be subsistence
rights for many Alaskans. It is a matter of who is managing the
resources. He said it is a crying shame the state hasn't brought
this issue before a vote of the people. He believes the majority
of Alaskans want to resolve it and vote on it. Studies show that
subsistence uses only 4 percent of Alaska's fish and game.
Alaskans fought long and hard on this issue, and one of the main
reasons Alaska became a state was to retain management of fish and
game resources. "And for us to throw this all away now because we
can't decide on the allocation of the 4 percent doesn't seem to
make much sense to this Senator," he concluded.
Number 156
CO-CHAIRMAN HUDSON advised listeners that all committee members had
been invited, although not everyone had been able to attend.
CO-CHAIRMAN HUDSON announced the plan was to hear from those who
were present for approximately two hours, then to take testimony
via teleconference from the villages. They were building a record
for all legislators who were unable to attend. In addition to oral
testimony, they were seeking written testimony, specifically in
relation to the task force recommendation, which is the only full
proposal that they'd had in a number of years. Although elements
of subsistence had been presented previously, they hadn't had all
three together: state law, federal law (ANILCA) and the state
constitution. All three elements must figure in an ultimate
solution to this complex issue. Co-Chairman Hudson emphasized that
written comments could be sent in or faxed later. He called upon
committee members to make opening comments.
Number 203
REPRESENTATIVE IRENE NICHOLIA stated, "Good morning. It's good to
be here. I've been here before, and I enjoyed being in this area.
The lifestyle here is very similar to the one that I lead in the
village of Tanana, which is located on the Yukon River. And the
lifestyle that I lead is fishing for king salmon, picking berries.
And right now, I'm actually missing out on that thing, but I think
being here and listening to your views on subsistence is more
important at this time. I look forward to hearing what you have to
say, and listening very closely, and bringing those views to
Juneau, if we ever have a special session on subsistence."
REPRESENTATIVE JOE GREEN noted that he and Representative Dyson are
from the Anchorage area. He believes it speaks well for the
committee that it is composed of a cross-section of Alaskans. He
expressed hope that whatever they hear or ultimately do won't be
divisive. He said, "I think all of us want the same thing. We
want unanimity. In some cases, I think the state is at odds with
the federal government. Sometimes we're at odds with the other
states. But certainly we shouldn't be at odds with each other."
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN said he was there to listen. He noted that
everyone comes to a meeting like this with some degree of bias,
based on background or who they represent. "But I don't think that
should keep us from being open to hearing what we hear here, as
well as when we go to Ketchikan and any other hearings we may have
on this very, very tough issue, because there are some strong
opinions, emotional opinions," he said. "It's one of the many
issues that we face in our legislature which can create, really,
anger among our people. And I think that's wrong. When I say `our
people,' I think all of us in Alaska are `our people.' And I think
we need to stand united, whatever we decide. And I'm looking
forward to that."
Number 241
REPRESENTATIVE BILL WILLIAMS said he was pleased and honored to be
there. He'd never been to that area. He noted how different it is
from mountainous Southeast Alaska, which has a subsistence
lifestyle altogether different from that of the Bethel area. He
explained, "A lot of the Tlingit and Haidas and Tsimshians from my
area have a feeling of a subsistence lifestyle. We still have a
feeling culturally. And a lot of our people don't really depend on
the subsistence lifestyle; the majority of them I know don't. But
... we still like to be able to live it, and would want to, whether
it's cultural or however it may be. But we are there for you
people that really live it, and we understand it. And maybe I'm
talking out of school right now, but I believe you, the people ...
in this area, have to have a subsistence lifestyle."
REPRESENTATIVE WILLIAMS continued, "I would like to be able to hear
from you .... It isn't whether or not you're going to have
subsistence, because I know you're going to have subsistence;
that's going to continue on. Nobody's going to take that away from
you. ... Even if there's a law that says that ... you cannot hunt
subsistence, you will hunt subsistence. You've done it, and you'll
do it and continue to do so." Representative Williams expressed
interest in hearing how the people of that area feel about the
federal takeover, whether it is a problem, and how they think the
state can help them in managing the fish and game.
Number 285
REPRESENTATIVE REGGIE JOULE told how the Eskimo name he was given
at birth, Isiqruktuaq, comes from the whaling community of Point
Hope, where his family is from. When they butcher a whale on the
ice, a person takes the membrane from the liver for use as a drum,
"to get that softer, different tone." That is the meaning of his
Eskimo name. Subsistence even goes to people's names, defining
them more than what they just eat. Representative Joule's wife is
originally from Bethel, and he has family there as well. He hoped
to hear, loud and clear, from the people of that area about this
important issue. In meetings where subsistence is discussed, they
talk about laws and regulations; however, the real subsistence
activity, and the expertise of that, happens at the fish camps on
the river, on the coast, and at people's homes. "And we try,
somehow, to ask you to bring that expertise into these meeting
rooms," he said. He concluded by expressing hope that this
committee would continue to visit other rural areas of Alaska.
Number 350
REPRESENTATIVE FRED DYSON stated, "I do believe that one really
high priority is to try to preserve, as much as we can, some sense
of unity amongst us, agree on the things we can and work together
on them, and the things we disagree on, to realize we can still
work together and go forth. I agree with Bill Williams. I think
that ultimately, no matter what happens, the people that live
closest to the fish and game, that are the best hunters and
fishermen, are going to get the game. And that's the way it's
always been. And whatever we do with regulations and so on will
only slightly impact that and has more symbolic value, probably,
than actual, because the good hunters still get the game and the
best fishermen still get -- and by the way, I fish in Bristol Bay.
I've been doing that for 20 years." He clarified that he lives in
Eagle River, where people don't consider themselves "city folks,"
and he doesn't go to Anchorage any more than he has to.
Number 378
CO-CHAIRMAN HUDSON stated, "I think there's one common denominator
... that we all have an interest in. We're talking about
fisheries. We're talking about game and wildlife and resources
that we use, that you use, more specifically than those of us in
urban Alaska, on a day-to-day basis, and how important it is that,
number one, that we have good management ability to see that
there's plentiful game, that the fish continue to thrive. And I
think that, if there's no other reason why we should have this
hearing and why we should be bringing up this subject today, in
addition to the fact that ... the courts have struck down Alaska's
long-term efforts to manage the fish and wildlife in Alaska for the
varied uses, including subsistence and for commercial and sports
and, obviously, for survival of even the stock or the game herds or
whatever else it might be."
CO-CHAIRMAN HUDSON continued, "But the management issue is the part
that worries me most. And it's different when you start talking
about management of fish than it is of game. The game can move
across from state to private to Native lands, perhaps, federal
lands, and through the parks and preserves and across the Great
Plains and to the coast and survive, if they can beat the
mosquitoes and the flies and things of that nature. But when we
start talking about fish, we're talking about the need for a very
complex, and absolutely necessary, scientific and biologically
sound process."
CO-CHAIRMAN HUDSON continued, "That is, in my opinion, the most
important thing that we have to draw our attention to. If we find
a solution, we have to make certain that that solution provides for
a sound management system, particularly of our fisheries, because
when you take a great system like the Yukon River, for example, or
the Kuskokwim River, there are many, many villages up the river and
in the surrounding areas that are absolutely dependent upon this,
then, taking of hundreds of those fish for their own subsistence
needs, as well as for their family and for their daily lifestyle
needs."
CO-CHAIRMAN HUDSON continued, "Now, how you manage a big system
like the Yukon is really very, very important, and probably one of
the most important things that we must keep in mind. It's not a
question of who gets it. It's a question of whether or not we're
going to have it. And so, what I'm looking for is an educational
system that goes both ways, where we can help you understand the
management needs and you can help us understand the ultimate uses
and also the intricate management needs in your particular region,
from your backgrounds and experience. So, that's one of the things
that I kind of hope that we'll work on."
CO-CHAIRMAN HUDSON asked Mary Pete to join them at the table. He
stated, "And we've asked the Governor's office, the Attorney
General, if they would provide someone here that could explain, in
an abbreviated form, at any rate, what the task force has come up
with. And that will sort of set the stage and give us some sort of
a common thing to talk about. But as you talk, and as you think
about this whole thing, I hope that you'll remember that
ultimately, when we get all done, we don't want someone to win over
the expense of someone else, at the expense of losing the very
thing we both sought in the beginning, and that is the propagation
of the fish, the propagation of the herds, whether they're caribou
or moose, whatever they might be, and the maintenance of the
habitat and the biological interests surrounding those types of
things."
CO-CHAIRMAN HUDSON concluded, "And if we all keep those things in
mind, I believe that we can come out of this whole dialogue and
discussion, for the first time in all the years that this issue has
been alive and divided us, I think we can come out with something
that we can honestly put together in the necessary books of law and
in the necessary management schemes. And I hope that it's state
management, because that's the reason we are a state. Otherwise,
we may as well just be a federal territory, and I don't think we
need to go backwards."
Number 470
MARY C. PETE, Director, Division of Subsistence, Department of Fish
and Game, came forward to testify. She explained that although
members of the Attorney General's staff or the task force couldn't
be there, they had asked her to read information into the record
and be available for questions. She advised members that she would
read a synopsis from a purple sheet (Summary of Draft Package for
a Subsistence Priority and Returning Fish and Game Management to
the State) and information from a green sheet (House Resources
Committee Summary - Governor's Subsistence Task Force Proposal).
In addition, she would address some management issues from the
perspective of department staff, who had put together a summary of
comments regarding the package.
MS. PETE noted that the first document says there are two primary
goals: to ensure effective state authority over fish and game
management on all lands and waters of Alaska and to recognize the
paramount importance of the subsistence way of life to Alaskans.
That document states in part:
"We understand that Alaskans may be reluctant to amend the Alaska
Constitution without knowing what changes will be made in ANILCA
and the state fish and game statutes. The solution is a linked
package of amendments to ANILCA, the Alaska Constitution and the
Alaska statutes. The effective date of the ANILCA amendments and
the state statutory amendments will be the passage of the
constitutional amendment. The voters will know exactly what is in
the ANILCA amendments and the state statutory amendments when they
vote on the constitutional amendment. The package will include a
Congressional determination that the state, upon passage of the
constitutional amendment and implementation of the revised
statutes, is in compliance with ANILCA and may resume fish and game
management statewide. The constitutional amendment cannot be voted
on until the November 1998 general election.
"The constitution will be amended to permit, but not to require,
the Alaska legislature to grant a subsistence priority to rural
residents. Simultaneously, state statutes will be amended to
create a rural subsistence priority, and those statutes, and the
ANILCA amendments, will become effective only if the constitutional
amendment is passed.
"The fish and game statutes will be amended to grant a subsistence
priority to rural residents. Communities outside the current
nonsubsistence areas will be classified as rural on the day the
state regains management. The Boards of Fisheries and Game, acting
jointly through regulation, will have the power to change community
classifications (add or delete) in the future a communities
change."
MS. PETE noted that the statutes will also be amended to improve
the proxy hunting and fishing provisions; provide for educational
hunting and fishing permits; clarify the definitions of "rural" and
"customary trade"; make it clear that the subsistence priority is
a reasonable opportunity to take, not a guarantee of taking; and
refine the subsistence management system, including adding the
state regional subsistence council.
Number 542
MS. PETE reported that the ANILCA amendments fall into four
categories: definitions; court oversight; state management; and
"Congressional Seal of Approval, Non-Compliance, and Neutrality on
Indian Country." From the section on definitions in the same
document, she read, with comments:
"The priority created by ANILCA is keyed to rural residency, but
`rural' is not defined in ANILCA. ANILCA leaves the determination
of what is rural to the administrative process, subject to court
review. In this package, a rural community or area has been
carefully defined as `a community or area substantially dependent
on fish and game for nutritional and other subsistence uses.' In
addition, `customary trade' will be defined so that subsistence
taking of fish and game cannot become a commercial enterprise.
`Customary and traditional,' an operative but undefined term in
ANILCA, will also be defined. Finally, the concept of `reasonable
opportunity' will be defined to make clear that the priority is a
reasonable opportunity to take, not a guarantee of taking, in other
words, to match the state definition."
MS. PETE referred to court oversight. She said Section 807 will be
amended to state that the standard of review for actions of the
Boards of Fisheries and Game will be "arbitrary, capricious or an
abuse of discretion." It will also require the federal courts to
give board decisions the same deference that would be given a
federal agency decision. She stated, "Adding these standards is
not believed to be a change in current federal law, but the
standards are not explicit in Title VIII."
MS. PETE referred to state management. She said Title VIII will be
amended to make it clear that the state manages subsistence on all
lands and waters, whether federal, state or private. Section 814
will be amended so that the Secretary of Interior cannot make or
enforce subsistence regulations while the state is managing.
Section 806, requiring annual reporting on subsistence by the
Secretary, will be repealed, but nothing will prohibit the
Secretary from reporting on subsistence activities. In addition,
the definition of "federal public lands" will be clarified to
ensure that it excludes all private and state lands. Ms. Pete
read, "The collective purpose of these amendments is to make clear
that the Secretary has no management authority while the state is
managing in compliance with ANILCA." She noted that the final
section "basically declares these changes neutral on the issues of
Indian country and sovereignty."
Number 599
MS. PETE compared the federal management system with the proposed
state system, saying, "In terms of regulatory boards, the proposed
state system will use the state Boards of Fisheries and Game to
make (indisc.--coughing) regulations. Although not required by
ANILCA, the federal system currently uses a single-purpose
subsistence board, composed of Alaska directors and five federal
agencies, plus one public member. In terms of the regional council
system, which is under the proposed ... reformed management regime,
both the federal and the proposed state systems use regional
councils. Under the federal system, all council members must be
from the region, but there is no requirement that they be
subsistence users. On the state councils, there would be seven
designated subsistence seats and three nonsubsistence seats. There
are ten federal councils, and the state ... proposal would create
at least six. This is the same language that's used in ANILCA, by
the way. Federal council members are appointed by the Secretary of
Interior. The state council members would be appointed by the
Governor."
MS. PETE continued, "Deference given by the board to the regional
councils: The federal system allows the federal subsistence board
to refuse a council recommendation if the board finds it violates
recognized principles of fish and wildlife conservation, is not
supported by substantial evidence or is detrimental to subsistence.
The state plan, instead of using `not supported by substantial
evidence,' would use the criteria, `is arbitrary and capricious.'
Also, the state board may refuse to follow a recommendation if it
involves an unresolved statewide or interregional subsistence
management issue or is contrary to and overrides a statewide fish
or game management interest."
MS. PETE continued, "Council recommendations not adopted by the
state board (indisc.--coughing) back to the regional councils for
further work. There is no similar federal requirement for remand
to the councils. In terms of implementing the subsistence
priority, the proposed state act requires that regulations provide
a reasonable opportunity for subsistence uses, with an allocation
(indisc.) defined as an amount that is reasonably necessary for
subsistence uses. And you can find that phrase ... in the state
statute."
MS. PETE continued, "Federal subsistence (indisc.) procedural steps
and standards are less severe. Under the federal subsistence
program, subsistence uses are given a preference over
nonsubsistence uses ... when it is necessary to restrict taking to
ensure continued viability of a fish or wildlife population or the
continuation of subsistence uses of such population. However, the
federal board makes no determinations about ... harvest amounts
necessary for the continuation of subsistence uses, as is required
under the state subsistence program."
MS. PETE continued, "Without such determinations, it is more
difficult for the federal board to measure the effect of its
proposed limitations, bags, seasons, methods and other provisions
to continue to provide for subsistence uses. And I think that's
why we're seeing more and more divergence under the dual-management
system of wildlife. We're seeing more and more divergence between
state regulations and federal regulations, without the concomitant
measure of whether they're actually meeting the needs of
subsistence (indisc.), rather than under the federal program."
MS. PETE said, "In summary, the state proposal for a subsistence
management system, if enacted, would be a better law than the
previous state subsistence laws, for several reasons. It provides
greater clarity in regards to board procedures. It contains the
workable common-sense definition of `rural.' It defines key terms
such as `rural' and `reasonable opportunity' in ways that recognize
the importance of maintaining customary and traditional use
patterns. It creates an (indisc.) regional council process, with
a requirement for a substantive participation by tribal councils,
but also recognizes ...." [Ends mid-speech due to tape change.]
TAPE 97-53, SIDE B
Number 001
MS. PETE continued, "... bringing that knowledge into the
regulatory system. It moves most subsistence deliberations and
problem-solving from the statewide boards to the regional and local
level. Cooperative and co-management principles (indisc.) will
provide a statutory basis from which effective collaborative
management systems can evolve." Ms. Pete offered to answer
questions, either then or later, although she had to catch a flight
to Juneau at 6:30 p.m. that evening.
Number 010
SENATOR HOFFMAN said, "In your presentation, you said that the
state is requesting that the requirements for reporting under
Section 806 would be repealed ... and the state not required to
give that subsistence report to the Secretary. And I was wondering
why they would not want that as a requirement."
Number 017
MS. PETE replied, "That requirement is of federal agencies in
Alaska, ... not of the state." She suggested Ron Somerville or Ted
Popely could clarify exactly what went into that repeal. She
thought it was to discourage the federal program from keeping its
staff structure in place, so that there wasn't a duplication of
state and federal staff in subsistence research and management, and
so that any reports on subsistence would come from the state rather
than the federal agencies themselves.
Number 025
CO-CHAIRMAN HUDSON requested that Ms. Pete remain. He asked
whether there were questions. He then requested confirmation that
those listening on teleconference could hear adequately; Nelson
Davies confirmed that. He announced that listening on line were
Dave Donaldson in Juneau; Senator Adams in Anchorage; and people
from KENI radio and the LIOs in Mat-Su, Juneau, Dillingham and
Anchorage.
CO-CHAIRMAN HUDSON asked how many in the audience had seen a copy
of the Governor's thorough, three-part proposal including changes
in ANILCA, the constitution and statutes; comments indicated
perhaps six people had seen it. Co-Chairman Hudson explained that
the proposal was developed through the auspices of the Office of
the Governor and the bipartisan seven-member committee, which had
held hearings and met many times to try to find a solution that
would preclude the federal takeover of management of Alaska's fish
and wildlife resources on October 1. Provided at the current
hearing were copies of a synopsis (purple sheet) and copies of the
entire proposal, which contained proposed language changes in the
statutes, as well as proposed language to present before the public
in November of 1998, which would change the constitution.
CO-CHAIRMAN HUDSON reminded listeners that the state constitution
cannot be changed without a three-quarters' vote of the House and
Senate, meeting together and affirming that it shall go on the
ballot, and then a majority of Alaskans voting to change the
constitution. He explained, "The constitution is so valuable, in
the minds of the people who created it and those of us that serve
it and attest to uphold it, that ... it takes a great deal in order
to make that modification." He urged people to read the report,
which may trigger ideas for solutions. He emphasized the
importance of beginning to figure out how to resolve this highly
complex issue.
REPRESENTATIVE NICHOLIA read language from the synopsis that says,
"A new section will be added to declare that these ANILCA changes
do not affect and cannot be used to argue Indian country and
sovereignty issues." She asked Ms. Pete to explain the reason for
including that.
MS. PETE responded that the neutrality clause was requested by some
interest groups in the state.
REPRESENTATIVE NICHOLIA asked whether there had been a court case
or another reason why that was put in at their request.
MS. PETE replied that, as she understood it, there had been
interest by particular groups in Alaska to add that this in no way
changes ANILCA's status as either "Indian country legislation or
not." It is just a neutrality clause. She stated, "It's basically
saying, `no comment on the issue of Indian country.'"
REPRESENTATIVE NICHOLIA remarked, "I guess that's not how I read
it."
Number 116
CO-CHAIRMAN HUDSON indicated his belief, from conversations with
the Speaker of the House and others actively involved in the seven-
member group, that they'd decided that the issues of sovereignty
and Indian country are "exclusively different." Because of the
time line on this subsistence issue, they'd decided to create a
neutral view on the other two issues, which probably require court
resolution, rather than dealing with them in this proposal.
MS. PETE concurred.
Number 131
TOM WARNER came forward to testify, expressing appreciation for the
committee's efforts to hear concerns from that area. He noted that
subsistence is a complex, emotional issue. He stated the belief
that the entire western half of the state, from the North Slope
down through Dillingham, King Salmon and the Alaska Peninsula, is
the most dependent on subsistence, and it is very important for
people there.
MR. WARNER said in reading through some of the proposals presented
in summary form, he believes the Governor's task force was a good-
faith effort, and they addressed a number of the concerns of
various groups around the state. However, the problem he might
have with those recommendations is in the language of the state
constitutional amendment, where it says the constitution will be
amended to permit, but not require, the state legislature to grant
a subsistence priority for rural residents. "I think the `not
require' is a real problem," he said.
MR. WARNER explained, "Those of us in rural Alaska have ...
unfortunately come to regard the legislature with some suspicion on
these kinds of issues. We very often don't feel that the
legislature, if they understand our concerns, take them into
consideration very much. And so, I would have a real problem with
that particular portion of the task force recommendation. There
is, as I see it, no way to guarantee any kind of rural preference
in perpetuity. I guess my preference ... would be to leave ANILCA
alone and simply allow people of the state to vote on a
constitutional amendment to comply with the current provisions of
ANILCA."
MR. WARNER continued, "Barring that, I do not fear federal
takeover. I think people in rural Alaska have learned that a
federal takeover is not the bugaboo that some might have thought.
I would prefer that the state manage, but I think it's extremely
important for people in rural Alaska to have this subsistence
priority, to have really -- they really have the need for
subsistence. If you look at the commercial fishing season in this
area, for example, this year was disastrous, just like Bristol Bay
was disastrous. For many people in this area, subsistence fish,
moose, caribou that they're going to take this year is a huge
portion of their food for the year. They aren't going to have the
money to go into the grocery store and buy that food. And so, I
think it's absolutely imperative ... that the rural residents have
some kind of guarantee that they will always have a subsistence
priority ... in times of shortage for fish and game."
Number 186
ANTONE ANVIL, Traditional Chief, Orutsararmuit Native Council
(ONC), came forward to testify. He introduced ONC manager Mary
Pavil, then welcomed legislators and staff, emphasizing the
importance of hearing especially from the elders who have lived the
subsistence way of life.
MR. ANVIL said he'd lived off the land for 38 years. His parents
had lived off the land as well, without jobs, money or income. He
recalled that when he was ten, he went with his father to check
traps for mink, fox, otter and muskrat. Instead of receiving money
for skins, his father traded skins for groceries at the store,
without receiving money. Mr. Anvil characterized the subsistence
way of life as a "very hard life for the Natives to go through."
MR. ANVIL emphasized that the subsistence lifestyle existed for his
ancestors. He strongly believes the federal and state governments
should never interfere with the Native subsistence way of life. He
said it is getting very bad. Now, they can't even hunt without a
permit. His ancestors laid down rules a long time ago, before the
Department of Fish and Game started telling them when to hunt. In
fall, people hunted deer, reindeer and moose. In spring, people
hunted birds when they first arrived but left them alone when the
birds began laying eggs.
MR. ANVIL mentioned threats to close subsistence fishing in Bethel.
A couple of years before, they'd closed subsistence. He restated
that his ancestors knew the rules of when to hunt and when not to
hunt. He'd like to see a subsistence committee in Bethel. He
restated concerns about government regulation, indicating one could
go to jail for hunting on federal land. Mr. Anvil concluded,
"That's not the way. Our ancestors and our elders, they shouldn't
be overruled by the laws and regulations of Fish and Game. I think
they should leave us alone and ... let us do our subsistence way of
life. Quyana. Thank you."
Number 315
REPRESENTATIVE WILLIAMS referred to customary trade, Mr. Anvil's
statements about bringing in animal skins to the store, and
recommendations from the Office of the Governor about "exchange for
cash for fish and game in minimal noncommercial quantities, as
determined by regulation." He asked, "How much would you think
that a person in this area would have to come up with to live a
fairly good life in customary trade? ... Today, there is a number
that is being taken up, talked about, that is approximately $15,000
per year, per person, in your family. Would that be sufficient for
you to live on in this area?"
MR. ANVIL indicated that even with an income of $50,000 a year,
he'd rather have subsistence food and the way of life he'd had
since he was a child.
Number 342
BILLY McCANN came forward to testify, indicating that mostly White
people are talking about subsistence, but it is not their life.
However, White people's lives are buying food with money, whereas
his people's lives are catching and skinning. He suggested it
would be wise to "make committees on both sides." He understands
the term "priority number one," as he believes everyone does. He
doesn't think the changes are right. He indicated he'd like to
have a committee selected by the people who know about subsistence,
rather than by the Governor or the U.S. President. Referring to
statements he'd made in Anchorage, he indicated they'd made two
mistakes already: statehood and corporations. Before the
corporations, they never talked about land, which was considered
everybody's. Now, even Eskimos say, "This is my land." Mr. McCann
indicated a third mistake would relate to a vote on subsistence.
Number 437
MR. McCANN said he doesn't believe the Eskimo people's lives will
change, no matter what the state and federal governments do. He
asked the "law people" to "get it written down." He stated, "Give
it to us. Don't bother us no more. We don't have no problems. He
indicated others do have problems. "Let us control it," he said,
indicating he wasn't referring to the Department of Fish and Game
assisting wildlife but controlling hunting openings, for example.
MR. McCANN related a story about reindeer herders. There had been
lots of reindeer at one time. But the herders started fighting,
"just like we do now," resulting in the reindeer being "cleaned up"
in a couple of years. He emphasized that resources come from the
Lord, who is watching at all times. "That's why we should be not
fighting too much about it," he said.
MR. McCANN indicated he'd like to see a fisheries board in Alaska
that isn't composed of people from Juneau or out of state telling
them how to live. "We should be the ones saying, `You can do
this,'" he explained, noting that if somebody doesn't know how to
hunt, they always teach them how to hunt, and he isn't against
that. He stated, "Let's work together; that's the main thing." He
indicated the desire to make this better for everybody. "We need
it, like I said," he concluded. "We're not going to be changed, no
matter what. We're going to do it. No matter somebody says `You
can't go subsistence hunting.' ... We've got to eat something;
we've got to eat. We've got to feed the family. Everybody knows
that. Everybody knows that. Even White people are doing the same
thing. So, we shouldn't be fighting. Thank you very much."
Number 518
REPRESENTATIVE DYSON asked, "What place should making sure that the
wild stock prospers and grows and is healthy play in the
priorities? Should that be a higher priority than subsistence
hunting and fishing?"
MR. McCANN asked whether Representative Dyson was talking about
what percentage of the wildlife to save.
Number 532
REPRESENTATIVE DYSON responded, "Yes, but you said that subsistence
should be the highest priority. ... But shouldn't it be a higher
priority to make sure that the wild game survives for generations?"
MR. McCANN replied, "You are correct. That should be counted. But
let's look. He said Eskimos know how much fish to get and use,
from year to year, and they should save some too. They don't
overdo it. For example, a long time ago, they used to fill up the
smokehouse because they had dogs to feed. However, now they use
snow machines instead.
Number 566
REPRESENTATIVE DYSON asked, "What should we do with migratory
animals, like caribou and salmon, who go from one area to another?
I fish in Bristol Bay, and you here in the Kuskokwim area. Both of
us probably worry that maybe the folks in False Pass and Area M ...
get the fish before they get to you or me. Who should decide? You
know, should we let the people in False Pass and Area M make all
the decisions about the fish coming through there? Or should you
here in the Bethel area and we in Bristol Bay have input into that?
I mean, isn't that a legitimate function for the Alaska Department
of Fish and Game?"
MR. McCANN replied that he never goes fishing at False Pass, but
all his years, he has been hearing what those people do. He said
that should be controlled by "Fish and Game."
Number 632
MYRON P. NANENG, SR., President, Association of Village Council
Presidents, Incorporated (AVCP), came forward to testify, saying
this hearing is only done under duress by the legislature because
of the October 1 deadline. He read most of a four-page statement,
with added comments. He said the legislature hasn't acted in good
faith to protect the subsistence rights for resources. The AVCP
has little faith that it will enact any law that really protects
the subsistence way of life, the Native way of life. The
legislature had rejected the Native communities' offer to hold
hearings in Anchorage during the Native Subsistence Summit, where
1,000 Native people from all over the state were present to address
the subsistence issue. Instead, on short notice, it put on the
present hearing.
TAPE 97-54, SIDE A
Number 001
MR. NANENG continued. He noted that the hearing is supposed to be
an opportunity to hear from all the people in Bethel, Dillingham,
all 56 villages in the AVCP region and all the Bristol Bay area
villages. He mentioned the previous two-minute limit and asked
whether that provided an opportunity to have a say. In the past,
elders complained that the state will not listen, that they are
always cut off. He said, "All this leads me to wonder if this is
really a hearing for ... the Native people or people from the rural
areas about subsistence. If the Legislature really wanted to hear
about subsistence, they would have accepted the invitation to the
Summit. Today's hearing seems to be only a political ploy, a way
for the state legislature to show some minimal concern and action
on subsistence, while doing nothing or trying to tear the ANILCA
protections apart."
MR. NANENG said the legislature's lack of commitment to protect
subsistence has been demonstrated over the last seven years and two
special sessions that would have allowed people to vote on a
constitutional amendment. He emphasized that this isn't the first
hearing on subsistence. The legislature has also weakened the
subsistence law since the McDowell case, by classifying areas
within the state as nonsubsistence use areas. He asked whether
that demonstrates commitment by the legislature to resolve the
subsistence issue.
MR. NANENG indicated the legislature has consistently reduced the
budget for the Division of Subsistence and the Department of Fish
and Game's Division of Commercial Fisheries Management and
Development, while increasing funds for sport hunting and fishing.
He said, "The legislature has also insisted on oversight of Board
of Game decisions, like the recent `bone on meat,' and I'm sorry
that one of your committee members is not here to hear that. But
it has consistently overlooked board decisions that are adverse or
fail to implement the subsistence priority."
MR. NANENG continued, "And the legislature has also consistently
rejected board nominees who may fairly represent and would work to
implement the subsistence priority. Instead, it seems to establish
criteria for board members that will ensure that the boards will
always be a stronghold for sport and commercial uses. Look at what
happened this past year, when nominees were made for the Board of
Game." He asked what criteria had been used and suggested that
they look at the legislature's own actions.
MR. NANENG said the legislature has consistently and effectively
destroyed the local advisory committee system by defunding it. He
stated, "And whatever they say is not even being considered by the
Board of Game or Board of Fish[eries]. The legislature has also
initiated and joined on lawsuits filed by the Alaska Outdoor
Council, ... contrary to the Native subsistence position. Yet, I'm
not aware at any time that the legislature has joined the Native
people or a rural person in filing a subsistence lawsuit."
MR. NANENG stated that the legislature's dedication of $500,000 to
fight "Indian country" in Alaska was conducted in a harsh and
insensitive manner, showing lack of understanding by the
legislature of the Native people and their culture. He said the
legislature must reflect on those actions to determine whether they
are committed to protecting the Native way of life.
MR. NANENG continued, saying the individual permit system for
welfare, which the legislature seems to want to enact, ignores the
community/tribal aspect of subsistence that defines the Native
subsistence way of life. He said every state, federal and private
entity that has ever considered the issue agrees that Native
subsistence is an essential community/tribally-based activity that
cannot be separated from the Native way of life. He stated,
"Native customary and traditional hunting, fishing, gathering,
sharing, barter and trade are far more than a way for poor Natives
to get their food. But it's a proud way of life for our people.
And it has been done for thousands of years. AVCP will resist all
efforts to regulate our way of life into a welfare scheme."
MR. NANENG described state subsistence management under the Boards
of Fisheries and Game as unresponsive, hostile to subsistence
needs, and a failure in implementing regulations that reflect
customary and traditional seasons, bag limits, practices, methods
and means. "The only way that we've had to change them is by
filing lawsuits," he noted. "Instead, subsistence uses are
regulated consistent with [a] Western non-Native sports approach to
hunting and fishing." He believes the boards often use "reasonable
opportunity" and other methods to frustrate implementation of any
real priority for subsistence. As an example, he cited board
regulations that forbid AVCP villages the opportunity to take
rainbow trout and steelhead for subsistence but instead advertise
and enhance sports fishing for these species.
MR. NANENG said his people are considered outlaws because of these
regulations, which forbid use of a pole and line for subsistence,
for example. The Board of Fisheries has completely failed to
protect the sustained yield of Western Alaskan chums, while
ignoring any obligation to provide a priority for subsistence uses.
He noted that there had been subsistence closures. He said the
state management system must be reformed before AVCP will support
any return of management, especially regarding subsistence, to the
state.
MR. NANENG said any solution that returns management to Alaska must
include a co-management role for the tribes. Fortunately, most of
the lands within the AVCP region are within federal lands. "And
... we're working with the federal board on many of the issues
because the state has lost its management," he said. "Under the
federal management, real regional councils made of local
subsistence users have been formed, and their recommendations are
given deference that ANILCA requires." He asked whether the state
boards give deference to any local advisory boards, then indicated
that in ten years of attending Board of Fisheries meetings, he
hadn't seen any such deference.
MR. NANENG stated, "More importantly, the federal managers, as well
as many dedicated and foresighted state managers, have started to
work with AVCP tribal governments to manage subsistence resources
through co-management agreements. The question that Representative
Williams asked about federal management, I'm sure one among you has
... filed a lawsuit challenging one of the biggest successes that
we've had in terms of managing resources (indisc.) people. You can
ask him about it, but I'm not going to mention a name."
MR. NANENG continued, "If people weren't committed to protecting
the subsistence resources, they wouldn't have gone into the co-
management and cooperative agreements. ... For they were to protect
the resource that they survive on. ... Because our people have been
utilizing subsistence resource over the years. And have we
depleted the resources?"
MR. NANENG said the Congress and Alaska's Congressional delegation
support tribal co-management, as demonstrated by the tribal co-
management provisions of the Marine Mammal Protection Act. Many
other nations, including Canada, are turning to tribal co-
management as the best way to manage fish and wildlife. The AVCP
believes that the Governor and the commissioner of the Department
of Fish and Game support co-management. Mr. Naneng stated, "And I
think that this legislature needs to stop ignoring the tribes and
the Native people in management and catch up with the rest of the
states and the world. And the legislature should endorse ...
tribal-state co-management." He indicated that letters had been
written by some state managers, who had said the only way they can
manage resources is by working closely with the people who are
direct subsistence users.
MR. NANENG stated, "AVCP will not support any loss of federal
oversight from that earlier provided in ANILCA. Alaska Supreme
Court decisions provide no protection for customary and traditional
subsistence practices or for the priority itself. The court defers
almost without exception to any decisions made by the boards. The
only protections subsistence users had from the Alaska Supreme
Court, this legislature, the state boards, is the oversight ANILCA
provides through the federal courts and the Secretary of the
Interior and Agriculture. Like I stated, every time we've tried to
make a decision that benefits the subsistence use, we've had to
file a lawsuit to protect (indisc.)."
MR. NANENG continued, "AVCP will not support any amendments to
ANILCA unless amendments strengthen protection for Native
subsistence uses and tribal management. AVCP stands by the recent
Resolution and Guiding Principles of the Native Subsistence Summit,
as well as the Roundtable Proclamation that declares that the right
to forever live the Native way of life, to govern ourselves, to
determine our own destiny, and to maintain our cultural existence
are basic human rights. And I don't think any law can ever change
that. ..."
MR. NANENG stated, "The tribes did not break the deal that was
struck in ANILCA; the state did. The state was the one that
insisted on the rural preference. The Native people did not
(indisc.). ANILCA was intended to protect the Native subsistence
way of life, and Congress was prepared to enact a Native hunting
and fishing right until the state protested and proposed a rural
priority. Now, the legislature wants the tribes to compromise one
of its most fundamental rights and legal protections, so that the
state can regain subsistence management. AVCP will oppose any
compromise or weakening of ANILCA."
MR. NANENG continued, "Alaska Native tribes must be at the table in
government-to-government discussions before AVCP will support any
proposal by the Governor, the Congressional delegation or the
legislature. AVCP is committed to work towards a solution, ... but
the tribes have not been given any real opportunity in the process
that has been used thus far by the Governor and the state
legislature. Even in the most anti-Indian days of the 1800s, the
treaties defining ... hunting and fishing rights were negotiated
with the tribes." He suggested the attitudes of the state
government system needs to change to recognize the Native people.
He stated, "This legislature insists on ignoring a special
political relationship that Alaska federally-recognized tribes have
with the United States government. The subsistence issue will be
resolved only when the state legislature accepts the government-to-
government role of the tribes and understands that the Alaska
Natives have a unique relationship to Alaska's fish and wildlife
that deserves legal recognition."
MR. NANENG concluded by responding to questions raised to previous
testifiers. Regarding federal management, he said AVCP welcomes it
right now because they are able to work with co-management. He
referred to the migratory bird treaty and indicated it will
recognize equal rights for Native people for subsistence uses. He
also mentioned the Marine Mammal Protection Act. In addition, he
referred to fisheries management and discussions of allocation by
the Board of Fisheries. He stated, "As far as our people are
concerned, it's not allocation; it seems to be discrimination. And
I think that meaningful, comprehensive reports are the only things
that we want to see, if we want to see return of management to
Alaska, not to the State of Alaska."
Number 206
CO-CHAIRMAN HUDSON pointed out that there had been no time limits
imposed that day. However, he asked that testifiers keep comments
pertinent to helping to resolve the subsistence issue. Although he
was willing to hear comments relating to reasons a hearing wasn't
held in Anchorage, this committee had nothing to do with that. He
emphasized that they were seeking constructive input. He requested
a copy of Mr. Naneng's testimony for the record.
CO-CHAIRMAN HUDSON temporarily turned over chairmanship of the
meeting to Representative Green.
Number 225
ARTHUR LAKE, Tribal Administrator, Native Village of Kwigillingok,
came forward to testify, saying his organization is not recognized
by the state. He said, "I really don't know, and neither do you,
what a specific definition of subsistence is. I live it; you
don't. I really don't know how to explain to you what subsistence
really means to me, because I can't. It is passed down from my
father, from his father, and so on down/up the line. I could not,
in my own words, find the words to express to you so that you
understand what subsistence is."
MR. LAKE continued, "The Native people, my people, have management
systems that work, that are not recognized nor acknowledged by the
present state management systems." He suggested the state's
management system is an attempt to replicate Native customary and
traditional systems, "because we do not take more than what we
need, we do not waste, we do not disrespect the food that is made
available to us." He said, "Our elders and their elders have
taught us all these things, and they have had no need to write this
down so that we understand. They are passed down to us."
MR. LAKE pointed out that there are many different species of fish
and game. He wonders at times how they can fully understand how to
manage and ensure the survival of these species. Referring to the
state constitution's sustained yield provision, he said, "But they
don't practice that. Look at the fisheries. They say that the
fish in Area M have no bearing on the fish on the Kuskokwim or the
Koyukuk or anywhere else. ... How could you say that you are
practicing or attempting to practice sustained yield ... on the
species when you put boundaries that do not exist? ... If the
fishing in the Kuskokwim is bad, it's an in-river fishery problem.
If it's bad in Bristol Bay, it's Bristol Bay's problem. The fish
don't know that. And we, of course, don't know that, because we
have no ideas about boundaries except respecting others' hunting
and fishing areas."
MR. LAKE continued, "The state also is saying that they want to
make a constitutional amendment to permit, but not require,
subsistence priorities. ... I will be blunt. I have no faith in
the state systems. I have been a tribal administrator for the
Native Village of Kwigillingok for eight years. The state has done
nothing to try to work with us. They have done everything to sever
or not to recognize the relationship that should exist. ... I think
it's time, at least for me, to speak bluntly, ... without holding
things back, because they've ... been going on for so long ..., in
the way the White men put it, like a broken record."
MR. LAKE said the state doesn't recognize the tribal governments,
and it has done a lot of things to hurt the Native people of
Alaska, "stating that their constitution says `one people, one
vote'". He said that does nothing to change colors or any customs
and traditions that they have, and he believes it has done a lot to
create divisiveness and animosity. He has heard the phrase, "We
want to work together," many times by legislators. However, he
believes it is hollow and meaningless because it is not practiced.
He believes prejudice exists, even if not spoken out loud,
including in the halls of the legislature.
MR. LAKE stated, "If we are going to work together, or try to find
solutions, then I think it's high time that the Alaska State
Legislature put it in front of the people to vote, that they make
some attempts ... to try to understand, in their own life. And
I've heard it so much, over and over again, `I understand how you
(indisc.).' ... That's to appease me and my people, I believe."
MR. LAKE stated, "It is very difficult to live and work out there
when we are not recognized ... as a government, because we are.
Our government has existed before the incorporation of the State of
Alaska, and it has been the only form of government that our
people, in my village and my tribe, ... has embraced. And yet we
are like something that does not exist. Here we are, in flesh and
blood, trying to provide services to our people, to provide things
for our people, to make life easier for them. Things that the
State of Alaska is trying to do is for the citizens and yet won't
recognize us as ... any form of anything. Complete disregard for
our existence. And unless that happens, in my mind, a lot of the
issues that exist today will not be resolved."
MR. LAKE said, "Our way of life cannot be defined in words that I
am speaking. You cannot change that through your rules and
regulations and statutes. You cannot feed a hungry man with words.
You cannot take his life away with words. It's not possible, I
don't believe. If a man goes out and feeds his family, he has done
that for centuries. He has done that as his father has told him,
not only to feed his family but to the extended family and the
community as well, in sharing that resource. As I was saying, we
have management systems. And it is believed that ... if you play
with or disrespect a resource, it's not going to be made available
to you. And I believe this is exactly what we're doing, ... in
dealing with this issue, because we already know what it is to go
out and provide food ... for our families, for our extended
families and to share with the other people in our village."
MR. LAKE continued, "We don't need any written regulations because
they've been passed down to us. ... Are we going to be forced to
sit down and write these things? I don't believe so, because ...
that would make our elders and others feel that we are not doing
the right things, the way we should be doing. And yet we're in a
lot of instances forced to do that. Our way of life cannot be
changed. You cannot take away the man's ability to feed his family
or his extended family or ... the others in the community by words
that are written."
MR. LAKE continued, "I have heard, and I believe, that these people
that you are addressing, especially the Native people, will
continue to provide food for their families, no matter what is
written down, no matter how many times they have to go to jail
because they are violating a regulation. They will continue to do
that because there is no other way they know to feed their
families, because it's available to them. It has been said that
you utilize these resources when they become available, like the
emperor geese, the Canada geese, the whitefish, the salmon, kings
and others, the moose, the caribou, the mink, the otter, everything
else. Utilize these resources when they become available to ensure
that your family does not go hungry, to ensure that they have
clothes to put on their backs."
MR. LAKE concluded, "I would appreciate, myself, that the Alaska
State Legislature take to heart the very existence of the Native
people, the tribal governments of this state, so that we can begin
to find ways to resolve these issues without those lines of
ignorance or - how else could I put it? - without denying our
existence. If we do that, then I believe that we have an
opportunity to move forward and to find resolution, not only to
this subsistence issue but to a lot of other issues."
CO-CHAIRMAN HUDSON resumed chairing the hearing.
Number 450
OWEN BEAVER came forward to testify. He referred to Co-Chairman
Hudson's opening remarks and asked about federal management in
Alaska.
CO-CHAIRMAN HUDSON explained, "The concern that I have, and that I
expressed in the beginning, was over the management of fisheries by
a multi-layered federal management scheme, which, you know, whether
we like it or dislike it, may conceivably come to pass if we don't
take some action. And the hunting has already essentially, in most
areas, particularly the federal areas, been assumed by the federal
government. Now, we're confronted on October 1 by federal
management of fish in navigable as well as non-navigable federal
streams, and that could conceivably extend on out into the ocean.
And my concern is that we find a solution, between the federal
government, state government and the people of Alaska, that will
provide for a broad-based management scheme."
Number 543
MR. BEAVER asked what the difference is in how the state wants to
run it.
CO-CHAIRMAN HUDSON replied, "The state would have ... one manager,
instead of four or five. Instead of having the [U.S.] Forest
Service manage waters around the extended forest lands like the
Tongass, and instead of having maybe the National Park Service
execute management under their particular federal law, if we get
back to state management, which this proposal is coming from, we
will have a single system of management, and it will manage, for
example, the Yukon River ... in a holistic sense, that is, the
approaches from the ocean to the mouth of the river to the --
there's so many different kinds of fisheries, and it's complex.
Obviously, if the federal government takes over the management on
October 1, we do nothing, there will be complex and, I think,
unsuccessful management scenarios that take place that could
conceivably see the very stock that we all depend upon, for
subsistence and commercial and whatever, diminish down to the same
point that it was before statehood."
CO-CHAIRMAN HUDSON continued, "Remember, before statehood, the
federal management of our fisheries had salmon at about 25 million
fish. We have, as a state management, been able to build that
stock up throughout the state of Alaska, for several years, to in
excess of 200 million. So, we've gone from 25 to 200 million
salmon, which, I think, has ... prevented an awful lot of
shortages. That's the only thing I was speaking to. But I don't
want to try to ... lead your testimony or mislead your testimony."
MR. OWEN asked a question that was indiscernible on tape, relating
to the state and the Native people.
CO-CHAIRMAN HUDSON replied, "The proposal that has been put
together by the task force, the seven-member task force, does call
for a management by the Department of Fish and Game ..., and it
provides for an input or a review process and support process by
advisory committees, which would be made up, and I think Mary Pete
mentioned, it would be made up of members from here, for example,
for the area, and the game and the fish in this neck of the woods.
Am I answering your question?"
MR. OWEN said no, then indicated his questions are from being
himself, a Native from Alaska, not a White person. [Some of Mr.
Owen's testimony was indiscernible on tape.] He is 66 years old
and watched Alaska evolve from a territory into a state. This is
the second time he has been before the legislature. He asked
whether Co-Chairman Hudson is from Juneau.
CO-CHAIRMAN HUDSON said yes.
MR. OWEN said he was puzzled and asked, "When are you going to
understand our way of life, Eskimo way of life?" He referred to
the empty seats and indicated people are out doing subsistence
activities. He mentioned Co-Chairman Hudson's question about how
many people had read the Governor's task force proposal and said,
"We didn't raise our hand. The only time I see the Governor is
when he wants our votes." Mr. Owen said 25 years before, the land
claims were written down, stating that aboriginal hunting and
fishing rights were abolished. He mentioned extending that right
in Washington, D.C., and in Juneau.
MR. OWEN emphasized that it is different where he lives, where few
people are employed. He discussed the White man's way of life
versus the Native way of life, indicating White people save money
they don't need at the time for future use. In contrast, his
people only get what they need for food. He referred to
territorial days and mentioned the concept of "only keep what you
want." He then referred to 1959, statehood and federal law about
closed seasons for hunting. He emphasized the importance of
subsistence and asked Representative Dyson how long he'd been
fishing in Bristol Bay.
Number 722
REPRESENTATIVE DYSON said 21 years.
MR. OWEN said he'd been fishing since 1965. He asked whether
Representative Dyson had fished for a company like he himself had.
REPRESENTATIVE DYSON said yes.
MR. OWEN asked what company it was.
REPRESENTATIVE DYSON said Snowpac.
MR. OWEN asked whether Representative Dyson had thought about fish
prices.
REPRESENTATIVE DYSON replied that he thinks about that a lot.
Although he doesn't like it, it has to do with the world market,
also.
MR. OWEN referred to processors. [Question cut off by end of
tape.]
TAPE 97-54, SIDE B
Number 006
MR. OWEN mentioned expenses these days, especially this season. He
referred to enforcement of state laws and to Juneau and Washington,
D.C. He indicated that only with permanent work could there be an
end to subsistence. He said, "We cannot sit down and starve." He
concluded by emphasizing the importance of subsistence and the
difference in lifestyles.
Number 035
PETE JOHN, Native Village of Kwigillingok, testified in Yup'ik.
Interpreter John Active stated:
"He says he's going to ask a question. He said that the Natives,
the Eskimos and the White people are not the same.
"He starts out by saying that, as he said earlier, that we are not
alike, the White people and the Natives, and the same with our
lifestyles. They are not alike. We don't live in the same way.
"He said that ... including our lifestyles not being alike, our
languages, we can't understand one another. And the same with our
subsistence lifestyle, because you're not in the subsistence mode,
you don't understand subsistence (indisc.).
"He said that our ancestors have taught us how to live the
subsistence lifestyle.
"... Also, ... as our ancestors have taught us, we have always
tried to provide for our families, and ways that we did was hunting
furs and selling those and using the money to provide for our
families' clothing and food.
"He says since subsistence has been around for a very long time, it
seems the state is ... trying to make it hard for the people who
live the subsistence lifestyle ... to continue that. The state is
passing laws opening and closing seasons; that makes it hard for
the subsistence people ... who are trying to provide for their
families, by opening and closing seasons when they're trying to
(indisc.) this lifestyle.
"He says many of the reasons why, (indisc.) of the other people
that were here before him, spoke before him, had said them. But he
wanted to ask, he starts off by saying people have ... come to them
and said that they want to help them resolve this subsistence
issue. He wants to make sure that the Natives, as well as the ...
other people here in Alaska, work together to reach their goals, so
that both ... sides are satisfied in the end.
"He says the subsistence lifestyle will never end and that it will
be passed on to generations to come, (indisc.--sneezing) lifestyle.
"He said that although he couldn't speak English, he hoped that you
understood what he said, and he's glad to be here."
Number 165
CO-CHAIRMAN HUDSON thanked Mr. John and expressed appreciation for
his comments. He called on Joe Felix of Toksook Bay and Carl
Berger of Bethel, but neither was present.
Number 185
CHRIS COOKE came forward to testify. He thanked the committee for
coming to Bethel, where he lives. He emphasized how important it
is that decision-makers hear from those most directly affected,
such as those they'd heard from that day who take part in
subsistence and have grown up in that tradition and continue to
follow it. Mr. Cooke said he grew up in Ohio. Until coming here
after college and law school, he had no idea what subsistence was
all about. "But after I got out of school, I started my education
and came to Alaska almost 30 years ago, first in Kotzebue and then
Nome, and for over the last 25 years living here in Bethel," he
said. "And I've come to learn a great deal about subsistence,
mainly from my wife and her family and all the people of this area.
I have participated in ... subsistence fishing, operating a fish
camp - not operating but living in one, using one, seeing how
that's done and seeing how, on a daily basis, how people live their
relationship to the land or resources that the land and waters
provide."
MR. COOKE explained that subsistence is the dominant activity of
people in that region. It provides food, work and self-
sufficiency. It is essential and is the cornerstone of the
economic system, as well as having traditional and cultural
importance. He stated the belief that people like himself who are
not originally from the area but who live there respect and value
subsistence; they are not of a different mind than Native people
who talk about its importance. "It's not a label or a shorthand
reference for some sort of special treatment or privilege that
people want," he stated. "I think it's understood and valued as
something that is really part of the essence, part of the being of
people who live here, our regional inhabitants, and that ... it's
not a game and it's not a ploy or an artifice asking for some
special favors or privileges. ... It's something that comes from
the soul."
MR. COOKE continued, "And I think when it comes to specific
proposals like the constitutional amendment, preserving the
protections of ANILCA, ... that there's a whole community of people
in rural Alaska who are not Natives and who perhaps don't
participate directly in subsistence but who do support the same
outcome that people were talking about here today: to keep the
ANILCA protections, to keep the subsistence priority, to make it a
requirement of the state constitution that there be a subsistence
priority. I think that this is ... one of the reasons I wanted to
speak, ... was because I wanted your committee to understand that
this is not just one specific group of people, one ethnic group,
that supports this objective, but these values are shared and
respected and advocated ... by others ... who are not originally
from here, as well."
MR. COOKE concluded, "But of course, I hope that in addition to
valuing and respecting subsistence that fish and game, as someone
mentioned earlier, can also be managed in such a way that all needs
and (indisc.) of all users can be met. But if there is a shortage,
I believe, and I think a lot of other people, the vast majority of
people in this area believe, that there should be a subsistence
priority for those people for whom subsistence is not just a
choice, not just a discretionary thing that they can do or can
choose not to do, that it is much more important than that, and
that ... if someone has to have their activities limited in hunting
and fishing, that they should first be other users, not subsistence
users. There should be a subsistence priority."
Number 281
SENATOR HOFFMAN referred to the language of the constitutional
amendment. He asked, "You said that there should be a preference;
and how strongly do you feel that it `shall' be a preference or it
`may' be a preference in the constitution?"
MR. COOKE replied, "I agree with what the first speaker, Tom
Warner, said, that ... using `may' instead of `shall' is not strong
enough, that it should be mandatory. ... I think people, you know,
a lot of people, like the people we've heard from this morning,
feel that their way of life and maybe ... their culture is under
attack. I think that has a lot to do with people's mental image,
... their feeling of self-worth, their esteem. ... If the voters of
the state endorse a constitutional amendment ... that says there
shall be a priority, it may not change the number of fish or moose
or whatever that people harvest, but I think it will make people
feel a lot more confident and secure that others in Alaska truly do
respect and value their chosen way of life."
Number 304
JOHN ABRAHAM testified at length in Yup'ik. Following completion
of Mr. Abraham's testimony, interpreter Trim Nick stated:
"This is John Abraham from Toksook Bay. And initially he mentioned
that he ... does not know you committee members personally, except
for Ivan. He welcomes you here as we deliberate over the
subsistence dilemma. He stated that we, as a people, although we
use these resources as a form of sustenance, as a lifestyle for
subsistence, the subsistence lifestyle, we cannot fabricate or make
these resources available to us, as our ... counterparts in the
Western world do. We cannot entice or allow these resources to
come to us by telling them ... to do so.
"Repeating what the previous speaker, Billy McCann, said, he said
these resources are provided to us by our Creator, and they are
provided as needed. Also, reflecting on ... the resources that
have been dealt with in the past, like the caribou, as Mr. McCann
had mentioned, there was a lot of bickering and fighting over its
management, and in time that resource had disappeared. Mr. Abraham
stated that this will be the case with other fish and game, with
caribou and moose. If we are divisive in its management, they will
eventually no longer be here, and their numbers will diminish if we
... fight over them or over their management.
"He also mentioned board members under the state system that ...
are selected ... to make these decisions and laws on openings of
... hunting and fishing in our state lands. He would like to
question these people, whether they could make or fabricate ...
these resources available ... to the people that use them, and if
they would be able to entice them to come to these areas when ...
they're needed, which basically is saying that this is impossible.
He said he likes to speak in these meetings, in these forums, and
was getting a little frustrated when his name wasn't being called.
And he would like to thank you for this opportunity to speak."
Number 432
MR. ABRAHAM again spoke at length in Yup'ik, following which the
interpreter stated:
"He just wanted to add that as far as the harvesting of resources,
Native people consider the year, or what's needed within the year,
in the harvest. As an example, the walrus, when it's harvested in
the spring, is used in the whole, down to the only thing that's
(indisc.--coughing) is the bones or the bone structure. He also
mentioned the fisheries and the difference between the subsistence
use and the sports fishery. He's appalled at how sports fishermen
can take a fish and then release it for reasons, whatever it may
be, whether it's too small or too old. He said he was appalled a
few years ago when, in the coastal area in -- for, I guess, maybe
the commercial fishery, when the fish processors had discarded fish
that otherwise we, as a people, ... would not do. You know, he
said he may not have presented in a clear way what he wanted to
speak, but thanks for the opportunity."
Number 500
JOHN P. JONES came forward to testify, saying although he'd been a
professional, he was speaking for himself. He spoke about
forefathers and the guiding principle that the government is by,
for and of the people. He referred to the Native Subsistence
Summit, saying he'd really not been part of it, and he mentioned
the resolution that resulted (Native Subsistence Summit Resolution
97-01, dated August 28, 1997).
MR. JONES stated, "And I think that some of the people in the
villages would feel the same way as I do, because these resolutions
were drafted by what we call the ... Alaska Federation of Natives,
the corporations; and these are the very people that are presenting
us with the problem today, when back in 1971, had they not put in
a stipulation into Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act, that our
aboriginal and subsistence rights were abolished."
MR. JONES continued, "But before I get on, I feel a little nervous
being in front of you with Mr. Somerville in presence, because back
in 1978, there was an effort to repeal subsistence, and it was a
referendum put in before us, the voters of the state of Alaska, and
bless their hearts, they voted it down. But getting back to the
resolution that came out of the Native Subsistence Summit in
Anchorage, I have some problems with it, and those are the kind of
guiding principles that I don't want the state legislature to go
on. First is the customary and traditional use. That is in danger
for interpretation." Originally from Chevak, he said the things he
hunts for there are completely different from what he hunts in the
Bethel area. He asked, "But if I would choose to, will I be able
to go after any kind of game around here under those customary and
traditional uses?"
MR. JONES said there is no really current subsistence impasse for
Native people in the villages. The Native impasse is between the
state and a federal law that lets them hunt. He thanked his late
brother-in-law for having the foresight to put that into ANILCA.
He stated, "And the impasse is none of ours, the subsistence
hunters or gatherers. It's between the State of Alaska, whose
constitution (indisc.) the law of the land. So, that impasse is
probably coming from one of the -- I don't know. The people that
originally had ... the same thoughts when they went down to
negotiate for us on our land claims there probably shouldn't be the
ones to negotiate ... the subsistence."
MR. JONES continued, "And then the other thing is that the
delegates to the Native subsistence committee expressed their
appreciation for the hard work and dedication of Governor Knowles
and other members of this Governor's task force. I don't know how
any Native can really appreciate what ... the Governor's task force
is trying to propose. I, for one, don't. And I think there is a
lot of things that ... the task force is suggesting that the state
comes up with that ... you should take with a grain of salt. And
you say we have ... a Native representative on there. I (indisc.),
probably the same guy that went to Washington, D.C., back in '71.
And he doesn't know anything about being hungry or having any money
problems, since 1971 to this day, as some of those people in the
villages are having. They don't know what's going to happen with
welfare reform. What about [if] the fish don't return? What about
if we don't get ... the birds or the other game?"
MR. JONES continued, "... Like the speakers before me, it's not for
any government to say that, you know, there's going to be game or
fish there. We don't know that. We know for sure there's going to
be welfare reform. We know for sure you're going to be making laws
that will affect our way of life. We don't understand why you're
mingling in our lifestyle. We don't. We don't do that to you.
And then the other thing, too, is that the resolution says that ...
they appreciate the members of the Alaska Congressional delegation
and their work to try to resolve the impasse. I don't appreciate
it. I don't appreciate them amending ANILCA to wipe us out. No,
I don't, what they were thinking over there. Or if they realized
... what kind of resolutions they are passing? That's not a kind
of resolution you will see from the villages." Mr. Jones referred
to item 6 of the Native Subsistence Summit resolution, which
states, "Any resolution negotiated by the representatives must be
ratified by a full and informed consent by the tribal organizations
and other organizations."
TAPE 97-55, SIDE A
Number 001
MR. JONES responded to suggestions that this is a complex issue by
saying, "I don't know what's so complex about it. Everybody's
trying to figure out what subsistence is. Everybody missed the
ballpark on subsistence, what it is and what it stands for. It's
something that is kind of religious to us, something that is lost
now, with the present hunter, where you used to take great respect
to the spirit of the animals that you killed. ... And it's a
religious ceremony. You want the spirit of that animal to come
back to you. You give thanks to it: `Now go and come back to me
again someday.'"
MR. JONES stated that the experience is not just putting food on a
table. For example, he is not young, as he used to be, and he has
seen a few changes in his life. "And I cannot go without having
some of the traditional food in a year," he said. "If I miss
having my stink fish heads for a whole year, for that year, I know
I will have missed something. My system will miss it. Likewise,
if you go up there to our villages and stay there maybe ... for
about a week, that McDonald's hamburger will taste real good. So,
whatever you do or what guiding principles you're trying to look
at, I hope you will listen to the people that are trying to speak
from their hearts. And like the previous speakers ... in front of
me, we've been speaking to you over and over again for the last 26
years." He emphasized that there are two lifestyles in Alaska, and
some people need to be convinced of that. He asked, "If you want
to have your own ways, why don't we divide this state in two? Just
put a circle around Fairbanks and Anchorage and make that one
state, and the rest of it, I think we'll be able to survive just
(indisc.)."
Number 030
JOAN HAMILTON came forward to testify, noting that she was the
first woman to do so that day. She directs a demonstration project
for outpatient treatment with the Yukon-Kuskokwim Health
Corporation (YKHC), funded by the Center for Substance Abuse
Treatment (CSAT). They use traditional activities to treat alcohol
and drug abuse in Native villages. "We are a research project,"
she added. Ms. Hamilton read from a written statement, with
changes:
"You heard eloquent testimonies of how subsistence is to our lives
in rural Alaska. The State of Alaska has historically had
adversarial and condescending, I'm sorry to say, relationships with
rural Alaska Natives. And this pains me to say this. I've had
high hopes with the election of Governor Knowles, but not much has
changed. Our experience under the federal management recognizes
more rural Alaskans as being able to be intimately involved in the
decision-making process.
"My work is impacted by use or non-use of subsistence. The
patients and their families are directly influenced by subsistence.
The majority of the patients that we have have fragmented
identities. In other words, the depression and confusion is
accentuated, made worse, by questions about who they are. We have
learned that reintroducing traditional history and life is critical
to successful completion of treatment for chemical abuse with the
three villages that we work with.
"Subsistence is our life; it is our economy. We absolutely need
subsistence for our physical and spiritual survival, you know, like
Representative Joule alluded to this morning. Subsistence provides
the essential nurturing needs for our families. It is a time when
families work together in a positive task of gathering food for the
body and soul. I'll give you an example of how we use Yup'ik and
Cup'ik subsistence activities in our treatment. For instance,
fishing. It provides for skill building. It's relapse prevention,
we've learned. It reduces stress because you are physically
involved in something intensive, physically intensive. And it's
recreational as well. And it provides us with `time out' from the
everyday life that we lead the rest of the year.
"It develops interpersonal relationships between families and
relatives. And there's a great feeling of self-worth that the
families get when they assist with provision of the food. And we
find that in our counseling sessions that it's a good way to
develop the trust, build the trust between the patient and the
counselor, especially during early stages of treatment. Instead of
taking them in an office like this and talking to them one-on-one,
we find that it helps us succeed better when the counselor takes
you out hunting or berry-picking. And the trust is built in that
process.
"The subsistence concerns compound stresses of welfare reform with
no jobs or job opportunities in the villages. Unless rural
preference is maintained, there will be - and it's been proven
over and over again - increases in abusive drinking, spousal, elder
and child abuse, [with] the resultant strain ... on the work load
of the State of Alaska social services, educational, judicial and
the correctional systems. ... If we don't have our life in
subsistence, I think you will see a greater increase in the strains
of your budgets that are already suffering. The majority of cash-
paying jobs in the villages are seasonal. Therefore, loss of
subsistence to rural Alaska has an acute and immediate effect on
our total well-being."
Number 095
MS. HAMILTON concluded, "The decision ... must pay diligent
attention to the preservation of human dignity. And I see
subsistence as equating to human dignity in our area. We may not
live in our village of origin, like Mr. Jones referred to; we ...
may not live there for over 100 years. But we continue to identify
ourselves with our villages, and our villages are synonymous with
subsistence. The villages provide us a sense of identity. The
villages provide us a sense of connection to our roots. They
provide us a sense of security. And I speak of this because I know
it personally. I haven't been in my village of origin since I was
11 years old, when I was sent off to boarding school. And today I
still consider myself from that village. My son has only visited;
he's 19 and in college now. He's visited only a few times a year,
and he still identifies himself as being from Chevak. So, that's
how critical our villages are. All of us benefit from healthier
status of Alaskan residents. For acting for a healthier rural and
urban Alaska, we need to - and listen to this - we need to maintain
rural, roadless preference for subsistence. Quyana. Thank you
very much."
Number 111
REPRESENTATIVE NICHOLIA responded by relating how getting fish with
her brother provides stress relief and strengthens their
relationship with each other and with their mother. In addition,
talks while berry-picking strengthen her relationship with her
sisters. She thanked Ms. Hamilton for being there.
Number 122
JOHN WHITE came forward to testify, thanking the committee for
coming to Bethel and saying their presence demonstrates their keen
interest and commitment, hopefully, to resolving the problem. He
specified that he was speaking for himself, as a "20-plus-year
resident of Western Alaska." He provided some background, saying
he'd fished commercially for salmon on the Kuskokwim River and in
Kuskokwim Bay, and he'd sport fished and hunted in that region
since he first lived there. A past member of the Lower Kuskokwim
Advisory Committee, he'd been on then-Governor Cooper's Board of
Fisheries review task force in 1986. He was chairman of the
Western Alaskan Salmon Coalition, which was committed to ending
high-seas interception of Western Alaskan salmon stocks in the
1980s. He was also co-chair of the Kuskokwim River Salmon
Management working group for numerous years; that was a cooperative
management organization with the State of Alaska which determined
openings and closures of commercial fisheries in the Kuskokwim
River. Currently, he is president of the Salmon Research
Foundation, which is associated with the North Pacific Fisheries
Management Council (NPFMC) and has the purpose of researching ways
to avoid bycatch relating to salmon in the Bering Sea outside state
waters. Furthermore, he is a member and current chairman of the
Board of Fisheries.
DR. WHITE again specified that he was speaking personally. He
pointed out that questions and comments of the Board of Fisheries
had been forwarded to the task force and were available as a matter
of public record.
DR. WHITE expressed concern that there is an "unholy war" in Alaska
when it comes to natural resources. He stated, "You've heard many
eloquent spokesmen before me say that resources disappear when
people quarrel over them. We're divided, and we're quarreling.
And I sit in the seat that hears the results of that quarreling all
the time. We need to find a middle ground, and that middle ground
(indisc.) to go forward, and the members of this congregation, of
this church - which is the `outside,' in the natural world all of
us as Alaskans cherish so much - the parishioners in that church
need to come together and find a common ground. You people are the
deacons in that church, and you have a lot to do with what happens
in that church and what happens to its parishioners. They're
divided ... and they're fighting. And unless we find a middle
ground to bring people back together, that church will fall and
will be desecrated."
DR. WHITE continued, "So, I look to you to, hopefully, see that the
task force's proposal, in my judgment, is a middle ground. People
have stepped forward. They've provided leadership. They've been
bold. They've compromised with one another." Dr. White said he
believes the most important item in the current task force
recommendation is the single-management system. As someone who has
sat on the board and participated in the regulatory processes of
the NPFMC and the state system, he doesn't believe Alaska's
resources onshore, within three miles of the state water, and in
inland rivers, can sustain the dual-management system. The
fragmentation will create greater expense and a divided regulatory
system. Research and regulatory authorities will be fragmented.
There won't be good information for making decisions, and there
isn't even good enough information now to make good decisions. The
duplicative efforts will not benefit Alaskans as federal taxpayers.
Dr. White said, "We're going to have a worse system, and the end
result is that there's going to be less natural resources for all
harvesters."
DR. WHITE suggested Alaska's commercial fishing industry doesn't
need more confusion or "muddlement" in its ability to rise above
the crisis it is experiencing. "If federal management comes in and
is not sensitive to the needs of that industry, it will experience
another crippling blow," he stated. "That concerns me as an
individual and as an individual commercial harvester."
Number 221
DR. WHITE continued, "As an in-river user of the resources in
Western Alaska, the region I'm from right now is experiencing a
paucity of salmon resources. We don't have the fish we used to.
And for this body's information, this river system is a perfect
example of what I'm talking about. We don't have the resources, in
my judgment right now, and as far as research goes, to figure out
a way out of the problem that we're in." He mentioned problems
with piling another regulatory system on top of this, with
additional research and duplicative efforts.
Number 237
DR. WHITE referred to other strengths of the task force proposal
and mentioned his participation on then-Governor Cooper's Board of
Fisheries task force review. He explained that local management is
important for two reasons. It bonds people to the system better;
they feel more empowered in how they participate at the regional
level. In addition, the work load of the Board of Fisheries is
great, and it would be a way to get a more efficient Board of
Fisheries process in place. As someone who has participated in the
advisory committee system, he believes it is "in the state's
strength" and that people will perceive more merit in the system if
they have more local control. He concluded by saying as an
individual Alaskan, he wants to see matter come to a vote. He
hopes that doing so will be a start in resolving the divisiveness
between rural and urban Alaskans.
Number 262
SENATOR HOFFMAN referred to the constitutional amendment and
whether the preference shall be required or may be provided. He
said the overwhelming testimony that day was that people need the
state to show a good-faith effort and to place the word "shall" in
the constitution. Noting that the task force has presented it as
permissive language, Senator Hoffman asked what Dr. White believes
should be in the constitution.
Number 283
DR. WHITE said as an individual, a rural resident and a student of
the history for 100 years, one reason for some of the language in
ANILCA is the "good protection of all rural residents for harvest
rights." Again as an individual, he believes the word "shall" is
the one that should be used.
Number 300
FRANK CHARLES came forward to testify, also stating his name as
"Plopeluk." He is a lifelong resident of the Yukon-Kuskokwim
delta. His father was originally from Nelson Island, and his
mother was from the tundra area. Mr. Charles said he is fortunate
in that respect. He has friends and family, and he has an
opportunity to taste and have part of the bounty that this land
provides. Although he could provide a whole litany of credentials
and titles relating to fisheries and resource work that he'd done
for years, he said that isn't important. He stated, "What I want
you to understand is, is that I'm first and foremost a subsistence
hunter and fisher."
MR. CHARLES noted that he co-chairs a new working group in the
Kuskokwim, who are fed up and tired of dealing with these issues.
He said there is a great deal of distrust and unease about the
current system. He indicated that even if the legislature's
attempts to resolve this come from the heart, as he would hope,
they feel uneasy, given the past practices and history of the
state, especially regarding state management.
MR. CHARLES emphasized that they are a very spiritually oriented
people. He stated, "Our main purpose in life is just to live as
we've been taught and to carry that life on. Part of it just
happens to be an essential part, not the cornerstone, not the
central aspect, this living from the land, what you term
`subsistence.' And I, like Art Lake and many others, and Willie
Kasayulie, are still trying to mull that one over. I cannot
describe that to you. Hopefully, by pointing out in perspective
what subsistence means to me, in relation to our efforts to `grow
Inyooee,' which is the way of the human being, subsistence is a
very strong part of that, (indisc.)."
MR. CHARLES emphasized that if they "sever that tie and compromise
it and mediate it and talk it to death, as has been happening and
will likely continue for quite some time to come," they were
cutting off a very important part of his life relating to his
identity, self-esteem, his place in the world, and being able to
function and move in a healthy and vital way, "which is what I'm
sure you each, in your ... families and communities that you come
from, are also striving to achieve." He asked legislators to keep
that in mind, first and foremost, "if you want a framework by which
you can value your thoughts and your actions," rather than having
the framework defined by "shall" or "may" or other legal aspects.
MR. CHARLES said he finds it ironic that he lives in the midst of
a "refuge," which is by definition a safe haven for flora and
fauna, ideally with clean water and air. However, he does not feel
safe or that he lives in a haven. He explained, "I used to think,
as many people here, that we were safe from the outside world, that
we were so isolated and removed, that what happened in Washington,
D.C., or for that matter, Juneau, or in Anchorage, would not affect
us. And unfortunately it has, in many adversarial ways. We are
forced to be adversarial. We are also forced to rush, rush, rush."
MR. CHARLES asked legislators to realize they are dealing with his
identity, which he hopes his four children will relate to and hold
dear. He mentioned customary and traditional use. He explained
that they share food out of love and caring, that feeding the body
physically also feeds the spirit and soul. He restated that they
are a spiritual people and said, "Look how willingly we embraced
Western Christianity and how we've molded it to our understanding
of your Russian Orthodox, Catholic, Protestant, (Indisc.) Church,
and a myriad of other religions that are out there. And this is a
holy war to me, in that respect. And I would hope that we do so
with caring and compassion, especially of others, as many of my
elders teach me and tell me and continually remind me, and as
they've done this morning and today, that we recognize our
differences and respect them, ... as I do yours."
MR. CHARLES continued, "Unfortunately, the past history and
practice of the State of Alaska has not at all been conducive to
this concept, with respect to the Area M issue, as an example.
It's placed us in the position of fighting amongst each other and
fighting amongst our own, even. I don't see any clear resolution
to this, except if you want constructive input."
Number 411
MR. CHARLES stated, "Chairman Hudson, I believe that the best
protections we can have now is to have the federal government step
in, because they recognize our basic Alaska human right, a person's
human right, to subsist and live in a way that most defines the
(indisc.) expression we want of our experience here on earth.
State management has been `marginalizing' us for time and time
again." He said he could cite numerous examples, but they are
meaningless, "considering where we're at now." He stated, "It
grieves me that we again find ourselves in, as I see it, an
adversarial role."
MR. CHARLES continued, "The position of the Native community when
the summit was convened and concluded, I believe, is not thoroughly
thought-out, although there are various good concepts and intents
and principles that help to define me. But that's not all of it.
I don't care to be defined, just as you do, and I'm sure you don't
want your children to be defined that way, in so many words. I
want to be defined by my actions, as you (indisc.). Your actions
go so far; and I don't mean you specifically, but the state has
demonstrated that there is no deference to this notion of sustained
yield, much less protecting not my right but my privilege and my
need to live and to have a higher sense of self-esteem."
MR. CHARLES said the Native people are continually asked to deal
with issues. This is one of many, including welfare reform,
sovereignty issues, building an economy, and protecting and
building the fisheries. Many of these issues polarize people. He
stated, "We in the Y-K delta, I understand, are at or about the
same population levels as prior to the great epidemics and deaths
... earlier this century. Even then, we do not have the resources,
and time, money and people or experience to deal with these things
adequately. I hear time and time again (indisc.) thing, the sole
thing, that we cannot be attentive and give the kind of time and
deference and careful thought and counsel that our elders taught us
to do in order to have a viable, workable position that we could
surely feel good about. I feel grieved that I don't feel good
about this whole process. Unless you tell me otherwise, by an
ironclad guarantee, through whatever mechanisms you have, my
position is ... that in the midst of our (indisc.) here on Y-K
delta, that we look to federal management."
MR. CHARLES concluded with a Yup'ik farewell, "beuga." He told how
for a long time, like many beginning to lose their identity, he'd
thought it meant good-bye, see you later, or "catch you again." He
stated, "But in the old way, it asks you, because you share with
me, we experienced together, we understand, we try to struggle
through life together, it means, `stay as you are' or `continue to
be.' In this case, I don't say `beuga' to you. I say, `Please,
set aside all the stuff that stands between you and I, as we try to
achieve it up here, and recognize our needs to live out here in
subsistence." He thanked the committee, "quyana."
Number 493
CO-CHAIRMAN HUDSON expressed the hope that committee members could
take back to other legislators some of the feeling they were
getting about what subsistence means to the people of the region.
He explained that in Alaska's government system, the process
requires that they try to somehow transfer testifiers' thoughts to
others, who will have to make a collective decision. He said, "And
I want you to know that, and I want everybody else that's testified
to know, that it's important that you're here, not that we are
going to absolutely be able to do everything that you want us to
do, but we will better understand what these issues, that are vital
to your life and your health and your family and your existence,
it's important for us to know that and to feel that. And while we
can take these testimonies in Juneau and we can take them from
Anchorage or Washington, D.C., we really need to look you in the
face and hear you speak from your heart, and I do appreciate
(indisc.)."
REPRESENTATIVE WILLIAMS asked how many times the federal government
has come to Bethel, Alaska or the current committee.
Number 545
MR. CHARLES said, "I, unlike the chairman - he mentioned the past
practice and history of federal management - do not believe that
we'll be placed in the same box, as was pointed out by somebody
earlier. These are changing times. The federal government was
managing fish and game resources in a very different time.
Fortunately, we have a great deal of awareness and education on
what the (indisc.) and managers, about where we are. With respect
to (indisc.) so far, our experience thus far in the delta has been
respective, cooperative management programs, co-management programs
which are (indisc.) moving towards co-management programs, which is
my ideal. It's been very positive, Representative Williams."
MR. CHARLES continued, "I'm not certain that when federal
management steps in, given the questions about commercial uses, for
instance, which for me, commercial fishing out here, unfortunately,
doesn't give us anything more than an opportunity to go out and
subsist for (indisc.), I'm not certain that the federal management
will give me that kind of guarantee. But at least what it will do
is to further guarantee that the fish and game will continue to
return so we can at least subsist, because that's what (indisc.) to
the land."
Number 568
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN said, "We're on the horns of the dilemma, and
I would covet your input on this: ... Wouldn't an area that would
be subject to a subsistence preference, that has non-Native people,
such as we've heard from Mr. Cooke and from John White, would they,
should they, be entitled to a subsistence preference, when what
I've heard, in addition to need, is a, as you indicated, nearly a
spiritual aspect to this that may not carry over from the Native to
the non-Native? And the other question is that what about a sister
or a brother who is of the same culture, who moves to a
nonsubsistence area and ... may have need? Would they be, then,
thrown out of this concept? And so, these are many of the
questions that we're trying to weigh, and we would covet your input
...."
MR. CHARLES replied, "I recall the state going through the
exercise, through the joint boards of fish and game at the time,
that there was an uncertainty about how things were going to
relate, and (indisc.) that interpretation at the time, when we
attempted to create nonsubsistence use areas, of which Bethel is
probably going to be thrown in there. So, we'll call it Ketchikan
and a number of other communities. And, in fact, that might have
been the first time that the Native community really felt beyond
afraid. They knew encroachment (indisc.) Native way was
happening."
MR. CHARLES continued, "In respect to your question directly, I
believe that anybody who needs to fish and hunt should. I'm not
saying shut it down, (indisc.) exclusivity, because we're all
people. That's what I would have thought (indisc.) trying to
understand. And when people need to eat, we speak of a great
hunger. And ... it covers everything else, and everything else
becomes meaningless when you are hungry, you see your children and
others. I would hope that there would be some mechanism - I can't
think of a specific - that could allow that, because I embrace
people for who they are and what they are, especially when they
make an attempt, as we do, to continue to see other things and what
we do now."
MR. CHARLES continued, "I would hope that we don't do what we did
before and designate the nonsubsistence use areas, because I
believe those discussions were very stilting. Fortunately, as I
said before, we have a greater awareness and education. If nothing
else, this conflict has ... raised the level of awareness, so that
a constructive input -- once we're given ... an opportunity to
think about it. This is all very new to a lot of us; I still don't
understand a lot of it. But once we're given the opportunity to
think about it and continue to discuss and counsel amongst
ourselves and with you and your constituency, even, I'm sure we can
come to a workable solution. I guess the message is: Don't rush."
CO-CHAIRMAN HUDSON responded, "Believe you me, we're not rushing.
We've been at this for years." He announced that they needed to
take a lunch break and afterwards would hear from the villages.
REPRESENTATIVE DYSON referred to the track record of federal
management in Washington state, Oregon and elsewhere, as well as
what it was like in Alaska before statehood. He pointed out that
the commercial fishery in Alaska was doing poorly then. He asked,
"What gives you confidence that the federal management will
preserve the health of the wild stock in light of that record?"
[Beginning of reply cut off by tape change.]
TAPE 97-55, SIDE B
Number 006
MR. CHARLES said he hated to put it in those terms, but he was
looking to the lesser of two evils.
REPRESENTATIVE DYSON said his question had related to performance
and the health of the wild stock. He stated his belief that the
federal management prior to statehood was terrible.
MR. CHARLES replied, "In Washington and Oregon, the kind of
management program they have ... there is very different than we
have here. We have a fully engaged people, because subsistence and
living off of the land is so important to us. And Washington and
Oregon are probably where Alaska may be ... 100 years from now.
Right now, we have the majority of people, living out here, living
off the land. We're not engaged in an industrial economy and that
kind of thing out there. Performance-wise, I think the federal
government can do a much better job of assuring sustained yield and
ensuring the health and vitality of (indisc.)."
REPRESENTATIVE DYSON asked whether Mr. Charles could cite any
examples where they'd done that.
MR. CHARLES asked, "Yes, with respect to this area, which is where
I have better experience than others?"
REPRESENTATIVE DYSON said, "Anywhere in North America."
MR. CHARLES replied, "Anywhere in North America. Well, I've
studied those. I have a conceptual idea. But as far as practice
and application, I understand with respect to marine mammals we're
getting a commission together. We take the example of folks up in
Kotzebue and Inupiat country, our brothers and sisters up north.
They've demonstrated to us that we can actually have a say in
management. Most importantly, it's to allow us to ensure that
these marine mammals maintain themselves in perpetuity at a level
at which we cannot just enjoy them for what they are but as people
to live on them."
REPRESENTATIVE DYSON indicated he'd talk with Mr. Charles about it
later.
CO-CHAIRMAN HUDSON called a recess for lunch at 1:05 p.m., saying
he would return at 1:30 p.m. for the testimony via teleconference.
[The tape machine was not turned off during most of the break.]
Number 207
CO-CHAIRMAN HUDSON called the meeting back to order. He advised
members that from 1:30 p.m. until 3 p.m., there would be call-in
testimony from the villages. (Some testimony was indiscernible on
tape because of poor sound quality. In addition, there was
extraneous noise at the hearing site, including simultaneous
voices.)
Number 271
WILLIE KASAYULIE, Tribal Services Director, Akiachak Native
Community, Akiachak Indian Reorganization Act (IRA) Council,
testified via teleconference from Akiachak. He read from a
prepared statement:
"On behalf of the federally recognized tribe of Akiachak Native
Community and the Tribal Council, I am submitting my comments to
the Alaska House Resources Committee regarding the way of life of
the Yupiaq of my village, more commonly referred to by the
governments as subsistence.
"The leadership of the Akiachak Native Community, President George
Peter, is unable to be present to bring forth the views of the
tribe, as they are conducting subsistence activities with the
majority of the men from the Kuskokwim villages.
"For the record, my name is Willie Kasayulie, serving as the Tribal
Services Director for Akiachak Native Community since September of
1996.
"The issue of subsistence is ... nothing new to the indigenous
peoples of Alaska. We continue to exercise the taking of the
renewable resources from Mother Earth to sustain ourselves as well
as our families since time immemorial. Our traditional laws, which
are handed down by word of mouth, still govern us as to know when
to hunt, gather and fish. Our traditional laws on subsistence
conflict with westernized laws. That is why our people are cited,
their hunting tools confiscated, and in some cases incarcerated for
trying to gather subsistence food for our families.
"In preparation for AVCP's one-day meeting on August 25th and the
statewide Subsistence Summit on August 26-28 in Anchorage, the
Akiachak Native Community held a joint session of the tribe, the
village corporations and village elders to review and discuss
several subsistence proposals that were being distributed across
the state for comment.
"The Akiachak Native Community arrived at its own subsistence
positions that were to be presented to both AVCP and the statewide
meeting. The tribe's positions were articulated to Governor
Knowles by vice chairman of the tribe, Jackson Lomack, at the
Bethel meeting, and I presented our views during the first day
session of the Subsistence Summit in Anchorage's Performing Arts
Center.
"The Akiachak Native Community recognizes the fact that all
eligible voters participate in the statewide and national elections
to elect our representatives. Nevertheless, whenever issues of
self-determination of the tribal community are addressed, the State
of Alaska and several members of the Congressional delegation have
always opposed the desires of the tribal community, thus denying
our inherent rights to govern ourselves.
"Akiachak Limited, the ANCSA village corporation, represented
Akiachak residents at the subsistence round table forum sponsored
by RurAL CAP in Anchorage on February 15 through 17, 1997, which
came up with a draft proclamation proclaiming that subsistence is
a basic human right and the need for the Alaska tribes to be
recognized by the State of Alaska as legitimate governments. These
indigenous governments predate the formation and adoption of the
United States and State of Alaska Constitutions.
"The Akiachak Native Community adopted Resolution 97-06-02 on July
10, 1997, [at the] meeting of the IRA council supporting the
proclamation. Based on that context, the joint session of the
local subsistence meeting on August 18, 1997, embraced the draft
proclamation as the position of the Akiachak Native Community,
including the opposition to the Governor's task force proposal and
the Murkowski/Young proposal.
"The community opposed the state and federal positions because they
dilute and/or eliminate the intention of Title VIII of ANILCA. The
participants recognized the fact that the present state system
needs to be changed, `along the similar system the federal
subsistence board has their program set up.' The community feels
insulted by the state's proposal of setting up an advisory
subsistence committee to the boards of fish and game without any
real powers. In light of the state's executive and legislative
branches opposing the `Indian country' issue, the Akiachak Native
Community cannot and will not support any proposed solution to the
subsistence issue at this time. We are not afraid of the federal
government's intention to take over the management of the
subsistence resources on October 1st, as they have been more
responsive to the needs and desires of the Alaska tribes.
The community elders eloquently reminded us that the younger
generation are beginning to forget how ... to traditionally care
for the subsistence resources we bring home to our families. The
Yupiit School District has begun to draft cultural curriculum that
covers a wide variety of the Yupiaq ways of life, including the
methods and means of traditional handling of the renewable
resources we continue to depend upon from the lands, waters and
air. The methods and means of handling the subsistence resources
should be mandated by the Alaska Department of Education in all
Alaska schools. Our elders are available to provide the
professional advice in the development of such curricula.
"The elders of the community also advised the participants to
continue to exercise the taking of the wild game for traditional
feasts and funerals despite westernized laws outlawing ... taking
game during closed seasons. Whatever ... proposals to the
subsistence issue are developed, taking of game for such activities
needs to be included. This would solve the unnecessary
confiscation of the resources and tools of the individuals, as well
as incarceration of people that take game out of season to respect
the deceased member of the tribe.
"As a member of AVCP, the Akiachak Native Community also recommends
the AVCP to address regional subsistence issues that impact all of
the tribal villages. If subsistence is such an important basic
human right, then AVCP needs to take a strong stand on the sports
fishing and hunting activities, including rafting in the
tributaries of the Kuskokwim and the Yukon Rivers. The issue of
user fees on corporate lands needs to be debated in light of the
commercial fisheries disasters our people faced this summer. All
these regional issues are solvable if people can get their heads
together and not rely on the experts from ... outside of the
region.
"To eliminate the fears of the non-Natives to `Balkanize' ... rural
Alaska with individual tribal governments, the regional
organizations need to start debating the issue of establishing
regional confederated forms of tribal governments that would
develop regional generic ordinances, such as on subsistence,
education and many others. For AVCP, all they need to do is to
implement the directives of 1988, 1990 and 1994 convention
resolutions to develop a regional tribal government that would be
more responsive than the regional tribal organization. Memorandums
and/or compacts then can be developed between the regional tribal
governments with the state and federal governments on a government-
to-government basis.
"Representatives of the Akiachak Native Community and Akiachak
Limited participated in the AITC/AFN/RurAL CAP-sponsored three-day
Subsistence Summit in Anchorage. The community went along with the
adoption of Resolution 97-01 and the seven guiding principles
adopted by the participants. A full review has not been conducted
by the community, but we are in support of the statewide
Subsistence Summit in concept."
MR. KASAYULIE referred to Resolution 97-01 and said there needs to
be a correction on principle number 6, regarding inclusion of
consent by the tribal organizations. He stated, "It should read
that the consent should be the tribal government, not the
organizations." He continued reading from his prepared statement:
"I have included, ... as addendum to this testimony, the outline of
the Akiachak Native Community Statewide Subsistence positions, the
uncut version of my views as printed in the Anchorage Daily News on
August 24, and my testimony of May 23, 1992, to the Senate Select
Committee on Indian Affairs in the Oversight Hearing on the
Implementation of Title VIII of ANILCA.
"I thank you for the opportunity to present my comments to the
House Resources Committee on this very important matter. You are
dealing with the lifestyle of all indigenous peoples in Alaska, and
you need to go to the villages to hear firsthand, rather than
making a fast trip to regional centers such as Bethel. Thank you
for the time and opportunity."
RAYMOND TEELUK testified via teleconference from Kotlik. He spoke
briefly in Yup'ik, without translation. [According to Ursula Hunt
of Kotlik Traditional Council, Mr. Teeluk indicated he wanted to
have subsistence left as it is. People in his area don't waste
food or hunt for antlers or trophies. If he takes more than he can
use, he shares it with others in need.]
ROBERT OKITKUN, Director, Kotlik Yupik Corporation, testified next
via teleconference from Kotlik. He expressed appreciation and full
support for Mr. Kasayulie's comments. He said the corporation
board reviewed the various proposals, and they were in favor of the
Alaska Inter-Tribal Council (AITC)/Rural Community Action Program
(RurAL CAP) proposal in every sense. They believe tribal members
should have priority for subsistence uses, as has been the case for
thousands of years. However, they realize that some non-Natives
may become recognized members of the community, and they think
those individuals will have no problem becoming subsistence users
also.
Number 484
JACKSON LOMACK, Vice Chairman, Akiachak IRA Council, testified via
teleconference from Akiachak. [Note: Some of his testimony was
indiscernible on tape due to poor teleconference quality.] He
discussed the historical migration and intrusion of people from
other countries and in North America. He said subsistence
encompasses all the fish, in all the waters, and the land mammals,
which his people have used to sustain them from generation to
generation. He referred to co-management and the federal takeover
of management. He indicated members of the Yupiit Nation had put
together a draft document related to the fish and game management
plan. Over a number of years, and as they were speaking, he had
worked with a council of elders to deliberate about the Yupiit way
of life. They have put together a draft document. In addition,
they have (indisc.) a draft memorandum of agreement relating to the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the Alaska Department of Fish
and Game.
MR. LOMACK said over a number of years, they have had meetings
statewide regarding subsistence. He believes the state and federal
governments should listen to their desires. Recognizing the
approach of the next century, he said they need to sit down and
settle this issue once and for all. Once they do that, they need
to work closely with the state and federal governments, as well as,
hopefully, international law, so that the systems used by the
Yupiit people are not altered. Mr. Lomack referred to the people
in his area and said once they put together a regional tribal
government, there will be no (indisc.). He also mentioned the need
for a traditional court relating to tribal priorities relating to
harvest of fish and game. He hopes in the end that everyone can
work together as a team to ensure the future of fish and wildlife
in their area.
Number 599
JOHN GEORGE, Tribal Administrator, Nightmute Traditional Council,
testified via teleconference from Nightmute, specifying that his
testimony related to the Native subsistence resolution and guiding
principles, the Roundtable Proclamation. He said Nightmute
Traditional Council, from time immemorial, has been the lead
organization for the tribe's organized village of Nightmute on
land, water and renewable resources. He read from a prepared
statement:
"Nightmute, Alaska, along with approximately 56 other villages, is
located within the Yukon Delta Refuge, covering 19 million acres in
the Yukon and Kuskokwim Rivers region. Nightmute is one of the
Northwest Arctic region villages in Alaska. Nightmute Traditional
Council represents the Yupiit people of Nightmute that very much
depend on traditional and seasonal fishing, hunting, trapping and
gathering, in their continuing struggle to maintain the cultural
existence, which are basic human rights. About 260 people live in
our community, of whom 99 percent are Yupiit Eskimo that live on
the coast of Bering Strait. Those folks subsist primarily on
walrus, seal, birds and other ocean fish. Traditionally and
modernly, all these subsistence foods are freely shared among all
villages."
MR. GEORGE said subsistence is how they define themselves as
individuals, as a society, as part of a greater cycle of things and
as part of a greater spiritual reality. It is life and death.
From a cultural perspective, it is through subsistence that they
know who they are as members of their families and communities.
Some would say economic development and preservation of cultural
values are mutually exclusive. "We disagree," he said. "We
believe with wise leadership and culturally-guided policies,
economic development and cultural preservation can go hand to hand.
As applied to subsistence, this philosophy also means that we
refuse to be regulated by hunting and fishing laws that are
designed primarily to serve larger numbers of sports hunters and
sports fishermen, each of whom is allocated a small but equal
portion of harvest." He said such a philosophical basis for
hunting and fishing policies might be fair and reasonable if it was
assumed that all users of fish and game are similarly situated.
"However, this is simply not the case here," he stated.
MR. GEORGE said their subsistence way of life is an inherent group
right that arises out of Native sovereignty. It is recognized in
the U.S. Constitution as existing before the founding of this great
land. Native subsistence has been around longer and is more
important than any individual's right to engage in sport hunting
and fishing. Their subsistence way of life is a culturally
legitimate, economically justified and legally recognized need. It
is imbedded in their language, spirituality, diet, dance, songs,
beliefs, myths, stories, games and harvesting activities. "It is
our identity," he said. "Without it, we would cease to be
ourselves."
MR. GEORGE said Native tribes, Nightmute Traditional Council, the
village corporations and city councils are unanimous on the matter
of subsistence. He explained, "Subsistence has not been an issue
to us. It is who we are: Yupiit, Inupiat, Aleut and Eskimos. We
need not and will not compromise ourselves in this regard. At the
same time, we are also citizens of the state of Alaska." He said
the Native people of Nightmute and its organizations do not
appreciate Governor Knowles' and Lieutenant Governor Ulmer's
efforts to reacquire state jurisdiction over subsistence. While
they believe that the Governor has tried to develop an honest
compromise that takes in account all reasonable perspectives, those
in Nightmute "have unanimously concluded that we cannot support any
further compromise of the subsistence way of life."
TAPE 97-56, SIDE A
Number 001
A portion of Mr. George's testimony was cut off by the tape change.
His written testimony for that portion states:
"The right of Alaska Natives have been compromised several times in
[the] past by federal legislation, and [the] State of Alaska has
tried to compromise the subsistence since its enactment, and we can
give no more without breaching the faith of our ancestors, to
ourselves, to our children, and to our posterity. Statehood
compact, which admitted Alaska to the Union and selected land as-
of-yet unfulfilled assurance that the state would disclaim any
interest in Native lands and subsistence rights. The Senate/House
version of who we are is still [an] unfulfilled promise to protect
the subsistence way of life."
MR. GEORGE stated, "The Alaska Natives proposed in ANILCA a
subsistence preference to be [a] genuine Native preference, typical
of other Native American land settlement claims. Any compromise
will be unacceptable. We are not unmindful of the counsels by
Governor Knowles and ... several of his predecessors that matters
of subsistence are best resolved by Alaskans for Alaskans." Mr.
George said they share the same concerns that over the long run,
federal management could prove distant and unresponsive to their
vital interests. However, they conclude that in the current
situation, action speaks louder than words. He said "Alaska first"
is a theory that rings hollow in their ears. In contrast, in both
Republican and Democrat administrations, the federal government has
been a willing and honest partner that has actively and fairly
implemented the ANILCA subsistence priority. It had effectively
reorganized the subsistence management regime and reconstituted the
subsistence advisory commission to make them truly responsive to
subsistence needs.
MR. GEORGE reported that the federal subsistence board is composed
of professional managers whom they have found to faithfully follow
ANILCA mandates in making management decisions on the basis of what
is best for subsistence, without giving unmerited weight to the
wants of sports and commercial users. By contrast, when it comes
to settlement of Alaska Native claims, which were specifically
reserved at statehood, the state "opposed us." In settling those
claims, Congress abandoned federal protections in favor of
(indisc.) promises "that the state would protect our subsistence
interests." He said the state made a mockery of those promises
with a fish and game management regime that was distant from
subsistence users and was unduly responsive to other special wants
represented by political appointees to the state's fish and game
boards.
MR. GEORGE said following enactment of ANILCA, decisions of those
same boards repeatedly forced Natives to go to court, even after
McDowell. He stated, "However, we would be willing to return to
state regulation of subsistence had the state legislators moved
quickly to amend the Alaska constitution to bring the state into
compliance with ANILCA." He said instead, especially after
reapportionment, the legislature has pitted the state's urban
interests against its rural interests. He said, "Under these
circumstances, we would be remiss to agree to return to state
jurisdiction. We have found, through sad experience, that the
Alaska legislature is quite dogged in its attempt to resurrect and
popularize Manifest Destiny as a device to steamroll and pave over
the unique, fragile and beautiful way of life that the Yupiit have
taken millennia to construct."
MR. GEORGE continued, "Unless and until the State of Alaska,
including the legislators, acknowledges the special relationship
[of] Alaska Native people and tribes with Alaska's wild renewable
resources and subsistence hunting, fishing, trapping and gathering
must be explicitly recognized and protected in federal law.
Federal law must protect the Native way of life for both rural,
Natives and tribes that still occupy their traditional lands, even
though these lands are no longer considered rural. Customary and
traditional Native subsistence uses, including cultural and
religious use, season bag limits, methods, means and harvest
patterns must be fully protected. Any regulation of subsistence
must have the least-adverse impact on Native subsistence users and
uses."
MR. GEORGE continued, "Federal law must explicitly provide the
Native management of Native subsistence use. At a minimum, tribes
must sit on co-management boards as equals with state and federal
managers. Co-management boards must have the authority over all
aspects of subsistence management. Tribes must have an explicit
authority to contract or compact [with] federal agencies for
research, harvest assessments and all other such aspects ... of
subsistence management. Adequate federal funding must be assured
for full tribal participation and staffing on co-management boards.
Native subsistence rights on Native allotments, ANCSA village and
regional corporation lands, ... and lands held for tribes must be
protected under federal law."
MR. GEORGE continued, "Native subsistence rights must continue to
be protected on federal lands and waters, as interpreted in [the]
Katie John decision. The Secretaries must retain the authority to
regulate state and private lands when necessary to provide for a
healthy population or subsistence use upon federal and Native lands
and waters. There must be continued federal oversight by the
Secretary and federal court, sufficient to assure full
implementation of federally protected Native subsistence rights and
tribal subsistence management authority."
MR. GEORGE continued, "It must be clear that ANILCA is Indian
legislation entitled to the same legal rights and standards applied
to other Indian legislation. Nothing in ANILCA may be interpreted
... to diminish the tribes' Indian country claims. There must be
a state constitutional amendment that fairly protects harvest
rights on lands owned or regulated by [the] state. Nightmute
Traditional Council and Native tribes, village corporations [and]
city councils strongly agree with the ... RurAL CAP Roundtable-AITC
proclamation that the right forever to lead the Native way of life,
to govern ourselves, to determine our own destiny and to maintain
our cultural existence are basic human rights."
MR. GEORGE said they stand united in their commitment to achieve
recognition and protection for these basic human rights and in the
determination that they won't accept any further erosion or
compromise of these basic human rights. In addition, they support
an Alaska tribal delegation's good-faith participation in
government-to-government negotiations as equals with the United
States government and the Governor to achieve the return of
management to Alaska and full recognition of tribal subsistence and
management rights.
MR. GEORGE said the negotiating team and steering committee must
fairly reflect all parts of the Native communities, and it shall be
jointly appointed by the Alaska Federation of Natives (AFN), AITC
and RurAL CAP for the purpose of entering into government-to-
government negotiations with the Governor and the United States
government over the subsistence issue and to develop Native
proposals for resolution of the subsistence issue. He stated that
the Native negotiators steering this committee should be guided in
all negotiations and other actions by the RurAl CAP Roundtable
Proclamation, as endorsed and interpreted by AITC and the March 4,
1996, AFN policy concerning resolving the subsistence issue. Any
proposal that may be developed or negotiated by Native negotiators
and steering committees shall be brought for approval before the
Natives gathering at the statewide subsistence summit.
MR. GEORGE said they are firmly committed to advancing tribal
management and co-management efforts begun under the federal
subsistence management regime, the Alaska Congressional delegation,
Governor Knowles and others in Alaska who seek a legislative
solution that includes amendments to ANILCA in order to return
subsistence management to Alaska.
MR. GEORGE stated, "In conclusion, we are Natives, Alaskans and
Americans. We are proud of all three heritages. We do not believe
it should ... be necessary to pick and choose which status is more
important. We do not believe that 19th century notion of ...
expansionism should be imposed upon our culture or lifestyle by the
conservative fringe that currently controls the Alaska legislature.
Nor do we believe that such an ... imposition can ever form the
basis of a wise and stable subsistence policy."
MR. GEORGE continued, "For us, subsistence is not just hunting and
fishing. It is not even just putting food on the table. Rather,
it forms the very foundation of our family and community
relationships. Subsistence is not an issue. It is Yupiit,
Tlingits and Eskimos. We hope that the State of Alaska, especially
its legislators, will join us in entering the 21st century by
finding ... any means of clearly and unequivocally acknowledging
... that fact. Until then, we do not believe we have no other
choice, but turn to the federal government to uphold the promises
made in the statehood act, the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act
and ANILCA. Thank you for the opportunity to be able to testify."
Number 158
HERMAN MORGAN testified next via teleconference from Aniak. [Some
of his testimony was indiscernible on tape because of poor sound
quality.] He stated:
"I would like to thank the legislature for giving us an opportunity
to testify on this important issue. I am currently the chairman of
the Central Kuskokwim [Fish and Game] Advisory Committee and I've
been ... involved in the committee for about 20 years. I am also
on the federal fish and game advisory committee, so (indisc.) a
unique perspective on different management styles.
"... Right now are tough times for managing fish and game,
especially with sustained yield. One of the most important
priorities in fish and game management is sustained yield. And
earlier today, one of the members of the Resources Committee asked
Billy McCann if he thought the principle of sustained yield takes
priority over subsistence. And I would like that person who asked
the question to also ask the leaders in Juneau ... if they think
that that sustained yield should take priority over sport (indisc.)
and sport fishing. Like right now, in Unit 17, the Dillingham
area, most of those moose are wiped out by sport hunters. Up in
McGrath area, the wolves are wiping the moose out (indisc.) and
also the sport hunting too. In Quinhagak, someone told me they had
60,000 sport fishermen. It's getting so bad they can't drink the
water from the river. They get sick, there's so much human feces.
What will it be next year, 100,000 sport fishermen?
"... And in October, the federal government will take over the fish
and game management, you know. But it's sad that the people ...
were never allowed to vote on whether they wanted that or not. ...
And some things that I see in (indisc.) for a vote is ... they want
to ban all trapping in federal refuges."
MR. MORGAN indicated if they ban trapping, the predators will
increase and wipe out the (indisc.) herds. (Indisc.) even if the
wolves are wiping out moose, they can't kill the wolves. There are
a lot of special interest groups they'll have to deal with. They
don't want to do anything to hurt subsistence or the resource.
"It's going to be a tough fight," he said. "There are a lot of
animal rights people."
MR. MORGAN continued, "One other thing that happened in Alaska is
up in the Bering Sea. These trawlers, they're taking a huge bite
out of the food chain. (Indisc.) heard recently they're taking
millions of pounds of pollock and other fish bycatch. A lot of
those fish are part of our salmon (indisc.), Yukon (indisc.). And
they -- nobody (indisc.) so we can find out (indisc.). If our
rivers are fed from the Bering Sea, it could hurt the whole state.
And in the headwaters, it's just being overrun (indisc.), overrun
with sports fishermen. (Indisc.)."
MR. MORGAN stated, "In conclusion, you know, the state has billions
of dollars in the bank, and yet they cut Fish and Game's budget.
(Indisc.) we need more money to manage our fish and game. We need
more research, you know. We need more fish and wildlife protection
officers. They say that money is there for our future. Well, what
about the future of our resources? Shouldn't some of that money be
used to protect the resources? ... Alaska is one of the last places
on earth that is still green, and fish and wildlife are still very
abundant. And they have a thing called global warming. They say
that's why our salmon ... are not coming back as much as they used
to, because the water's so warm. (Indisc.) what is destroying this
(indisc.). Alaska has all this money in the bank, and ... our
resources are being depleted. You know, we're supposed to have
dominion over this earth, not destroy it."
Number 221
CO-CHAIRMAN HUDSON thanked Mr. Morgan and said he'd brought up some
excellent points, obviously from a position of working and
understanding the interrelationships between the offshore impact of
management and control of the fisheries on the returns to the
streams, as well as his statements concerning the impact of almost
unlimited sports fishing and hunting in areas and the lack of
control over predation. Co-Chairman Hudson said he believes all of
that is very important.
Number 238
FRANK FOX, Natural Resources Director, Native Village of Kwinhagak,
testified via teleconference from Quinhagak. He spoke very briefly
in Yup'ik, then noted that with him was Paul Beebe, traditional IRA
council member for the Native Village of Kwinhagak. He said other
council members couldn't be there because they were participating
in subsistence activities.
MR. FOX advised members that the Native Village of Kwinhagak is in
full support of the proclamation and proposals made at the Native
Subsistence Summit in Anchorage the previous month. He stated his
belief that they definitely need to have a "co-equal management" of
resources to sustain their subsistence way of life, which is not a
matter of law but a "matter of our right to live." He pointed out
that lawsuits don't bring food to their tables. Instead, hunting,
fishing, gathering and berry-picking are means of obtaining food.
MR. FOX said maybe this time they will get subsistence as their
right to live, which means having the right to harvest and gather
food to feed their families. "Without subsistence hunting and
fishing, we will not survive as people," he said, noting that
subsistence has existed from time immemorial and will exist long
after they are gone. He asked who in his right mind would fight
their right to live. "Think about that," he concluded. He thanked
the committee for the opportunity to testify.
Number 305
PAUL BEEBE, Member, Quinhagak IRA Council, testified via
teleconference from Quinhagak, stating in English that he would
testify in his own Eskimo language. Mr. Beebe spoke in Yup'ik, and
Trim Nick translated almost simultaneously, saying Mr. Beebe grew
up in a subsistence lifestyle. It is his desire for his
subsistence lifestyle not to be altered. This has been his
livelihood. It has been passed on and should not be changed at
this time. His people don't go out to the wild for the fun of it,
for entertainment or recreation, but rather for food and clothing.
They live off of fish and game as they become available. Mr. Trim
stated, "Since the beginning of ... the subsistence issue, before
we had come to a resolution on this issue, I am an elder at this
point. I have a lot of things to bring forth in this testimony,
but with regard to others that want to speak, I will (indisc.)."
CO-CHAIRMAN HUDSON expressed respect for Mr. Beebe's longevity in
Alaska and this region. He also complimented the translator for
his work.
Number 408
JOHN SHARP testified via teleconference from Quinhagak. He said
simply that the people of the Native Village of Kwinhagak, as they
always have done in the past, will continue to subsist, gather,
fish, hunt and put meat on the table. He asked, "Is that
understood?"
CO-CHAIRMAN HUDSON said yes.
Number 451
DAVID KAGANAK testified via teleconference from Scammon Bay,
speaking Yup'ik. Interpreter Trim Nick provided a translation
almost simultaneously. (Some of the translation was difficult to
discern on tape, partly due to extraneous noise.) Mr. Nick stated
on Mr. Kaganak's behalf:
"... We are not trying to alter or break ... this legislation or
these laws. In the spring, when the fish arrive and when it is
time to subsist on this fishery ... resource, we fish ... for this
resource, and we take what we need of this resource. We take what
... we need at that point for the year. We want to be able to
subsist on this resource as we have done, without changing or
altering by decreasing or changing the regulations in regards to
whether fish and game resources, when we are given the privilege to
hunt ... through the permit system or by openings. And we can't,
at that point -- our resources that we use for -- for some time.
These laws or regulations are enforced and (indisc.) season, and we
know these regulations.
"We do not wish a decrease of these (indisc.) holders, subsistence
(indisc.) holders. And we now use a permit system for hunting and
fishing. A lot of these ... permits are increasingly being
transferred to other users, as we operate the fish and game
management ... under the permit system.
"And another issue is the commercial use of, like, the ordinary
mammals. We harvest these mammals for trade and as an economic
resource. We ... do not want a decrease or elimination of this
resource as an economic resource (indisc.--coughing).
"We, as a people, ... the subsistence lifestyle is a part of our
framework, as a source of food. If we were to maintain this
privilege, it would be to our benefit. It is not, as was stated,
... a form of recreation but (indisc.) sustenance for people. And
that's what I wanted to say (indisc.)."
Number 570
CARL DOCK, Kipnuk Traditional Council, testified via teleconference
from Kipnuk, specifying that he works with natural resources
issues. He was submitting testimony on behalf of the Native
Village of Kipnuk, population 630. He said they are in full
support of the guiding principles and Resolution 97-01 passed
August 26-28, 1997, at the Native Subsistence Summit. They want
equal responsibility to manage the subsistence resource for the
benefit of their people, including involvement in proposals and
regulations.
MR. DOCK stated that subsistence is vital to their way of life as
Alaska Natives, and they must be recognized and have the right to
manage and have responsibility over their subsistence. "If the
State of Alaska wants to manage our subsistence, they must agree to
the guiding principles and Resolution 97-01 that was passed by the
Natives of ... Alaska here in the Native Subsistence Summit," he
stated. "We hope that you will consider our position and recognize
our capabilities to manage on an equal basis our subsistence and
the resources that we depend on."
Number 605
NICK LUPIE testified next via teleconference from Tuntutuliak, in
Yup'ik. Interpreter Trim Nick translated almost simultaneously,
stating:
"I want you listening to understand the testimony that has been
given. A lot of what I want to say has been presented already by
the previous speakers. We are speaking for the villages, on
behalf. This lifestyle as we have lived it is a very important
issue. This lifestyle is a hazardous lifestyle. There have been
casualties. Since I was a child, we have had hardship and the
shortages at times, and we at times don't know how we will survive
in the next day.
"It is my wish that we prepare -- not be a forced regulation of
this lifestyle, since we already have another or a higher order
that is regulating this lifestyle. Although we have hardships at
times and don't know how we will get by, like in the next day or so
...." [Ends mid-speech due to tape change.]
TAPE 97-56, SIDE B
Number 001
MR. LUPIE continued in Yup'ik. The interpreter said:
"This subsistence dilemma or issue, as we have (indisc.) or in
older times, we as elders, as we have lived it, have not been happy
with the divisiveness in the regulation of ... fish and game
management, taking the rivers or the tributaries and the upper
regions as an example. Our subsistence lifestyle, ... we
deliberate over it and over its management, since we have started
this as a lifestyle. I wanted to present these things to this
committee in support of and to give you support as you debate over
this issue. I am grateful for this opportunity to speak ... along
with the others that have spoken."
Number 028
PETER ELACHIK testified via teleconference from Kotlik, stating
support for the AITC/RurAL CAP proposal. He emphasized that in
addition to putting food on the table immediately, subsistence
users put away food for the winter. His staple diet comes from the
water, the land or the air. It is supplemented by food from the
store, including sugar and flour. Living from the store is cost-
prohibitive. He believes restricting subsistence would force more
people onto welfare, resulting in additional costs to the state and
federal governments.
WILLIE KAMKOFF testified via teleconference from Kotlik, speaking
Yup'ik. The interpreter translated almost simultaneously, saying:
"It is imperative that we not change our lifestyle, ... as it's
affected by the subsistence issue. As a child, we had depended on
fish and game and did not have the staples that had been imported,
like flour. It would lead to (indisc.) carry on, without changing
the regulatory system, because we are concerned at this point of
our children and our grandchildren and the access they will have to
these resources.
"At that time, the hunters and the fishermen did not say they were
designating their hunting as such a resource, as a -- that was
never (indisc.). ... They did not say -- or they did not go out
because they had been permitted ... through an opening or by
regulation. Whatever resource was harvested was used in the home.
And the sea mammals on the coastal area, the same as the land-based
resources. Our subsistence lifestyle is one that we must keep and
... would, remembering our children and our grandchildren, with
those others to come. It is imperative that we not alter or change
this lifestyle, the system, so that these children will have access
to these resources. We (indisc.) under a permit system at this
point, with the designated seals or certain resources, as we were
not regulated in times past. This lifestyle is one we need to keep
and not change. We, as Yup'ik people, we need to return to ... our
ways where we were not (indisc.) by a regulatory or (indisc.)
system and to have access to these resources as we live. That's
what I wanted to say."
Number 111
MYRA OLSEN, Chief, Egegik Tribal Council, testified via
teleconference from Egegik. She emphasized that for any proposed
solution, there must be participation and support of the federally-
recognized tribes in Alaska. She stated:
"The resolution demands that the RurAL CAP/AITC/AFN summit, along
with the guiding principles, are the intent to form a basis for
agreement in resolving this issue. And I'd like to point out, as
Willie Kasayulie did, that number 6 of the resolution should read,
`Any resolution negotiated by the representatives must be ratified
by the full and informed consent of the Alaska Native tribes.' I
really think that should be emphasized.
"The recognition of the government-to-government relationship with
the United States needs to be understood by the Alaska State
Legislature, and a foundation of this governmental authority over
our people should be basic to negotiating a settlement to this
issue. Subsistence is our way of life. It is not welfare or even
limited to hunting and fishing. And subsistence taking of all fish
and game in Alaska is 4 percent of all the resources in the state.
And, in fact, the subsistence take of fish in Bristol Bay amounts
to a fraction of 1 percent of the total run. When we hear the
arguments of sport hunters and fishers that Alaska's resources are
their right, the question arises of why no mention is made of the
nonresident for hunting and fishing rights interests that for
several years have exceeded the (indisc.) licensing. And to craft
legislation that favors them and provides increasing profits for a
few guides and tourist-related businesses is not fair to the
indigenous peoples of Alaska.
"As to the issue of Alaska management, as we've watched what's
happened the past several years, it is (indisc.) that the federal
subsistence board is made up of knowledgeable people of the region,
and (indisc.) relations are heeded, while the state boards make
sure that (indisc.) in place or override recommendations by
advisory committees. And those representatives of sport fish and
hunting (indisc.) of their proposals.
"As to state management, the legislature, in their efforts to show
budget reduction, have cut operating budgets so severely, I
question whether workable programs can remain, knowing the
legislators again plan more budget reductions. To illustrate what
I mean, this summer the Alaska Department of Fish and Game in
Bristol Bay allowed a seiner to fish, which is illegal in Bristol
Bay for salmon, in a closed area, to obtain money to enhance their
operating budget, placing managers in direct competition with
fishers for the resource. As you know, this year Bristol Bay has
been declared an economic disaster. And so, my question is: Whose
fish did they take for field samples taken?
"You wonder why the Native community has (indisc.) regarding state
management. Subsistence, or our way of life, is a basic human
right, and attempts by the state to remove our protection, to
pursue our way of life, will be resisted adamantly. Thank you."
Number 161
NOAH ANDREW testified via teleconference from Tuluksak. [Some
testimony was indiscernible on tape due to poor sound quality,
extraneous noise and low-level speech by others.] He said his
urgent message is, "Think before legislation." He mentioned how
people beginning school learn the basics, 1, 2, 3 and A, B, C,
which are used for the rest of one's life. "Learn this and learn
it well," he said. "Subsistence is everyone in the family: man,
wife, sons and daughters. Bringing it closer yet, subsistence is
me. Subsistence is part of me that nourishes me. It clothes my
family, my children, my wife and myself. Subsistence is my way of
life. Subsistence is me and my friends, the (indisc.)."
MR. ANDREW mentioned recreation and said, "The main thing to me:
food. The fur clothes me, materials made of reindeer. A
waterproof bag I need ... to store for others, for a later time.
... In each tribe, the guts are needed for the drum, the meat is
needed to feed the families, the furs ... are skinned and needed to
clothe all the members of the family."
MR. ANDREW indicated the bottom line is those living the
subsistence lifestyle instead of those trying to regulate
subsistence but not living on it. He indicated he was depending on
this committee, and he asked, "Where is all this leading to?" He
emphasized his dependence on the resource and said all their lives,
they'd been taught by the very people living on the resources. He
said, "We know how to use them. We know how to store them. We
know how to preserve them. We know how to let them go and
multiply." He stated, "No one can better manage the fish and
(indisc.) than the Natives themselves." He noted that century
after century, they had managed it.
MR. ANDREW asked: "What's wrong with federal government managing
federal lands, state government managing state lands, and village
governments managing village lands? There are (indisc.) federal
and state laws existing, protecting Natives." He mentioned the
state constitution and the compact with the United States, under
which the people agreed and declared that they forever disclaimed
all right and title to land or other property not (indisc.) to the
state or (indisc.). He noted that this included fishing rights.
He also discussed co-management and the need to work together. Mr.
Andrew concluded, "We are the subsistence. Let us regulate
ourselves in our communities, in our villages. He mentioned co-
management and emphasized that all laws relating to subsistence
must be ratified by the community and village. "They live on it;
it's their life," he added.
Number 285
CORRINE OLSEN testified via teleconference from Egegik, on Bristol
Bay. She is not originally from there, but her husband is one of
Egegik's best hunters and is a commercial fisherman. They'd made
no money that year from commercial fishing, and they need to rely
on the land to provide for them. "Subsistence was, and always will
be, our way of life, because of our ability and knowledge to
harvest what the land provides," she explained. "We have never
been on welfare, and we don't plan on applying for welfare."
Number 333
CO-CHAIRMAN HUDSON called a recess at 3:14 p.m. He called the
meeting back to order at 3:25 p.m.
Number 340
JAMES GUY, SR., came forward to testify. He provided some family
history, including that his father was a good trapper, hunter and
reindeer herder. When he was 15 years old, Mr. Guy went out with
his father, traveling all over. He pointed out that subsistence
hunting is not easy. One might catch two or three geese and then
return because of a big storm, coming back to camp soaking wet.
His own father set traps when the season was open and stored the
traps and snares before the season closed. However, he never
stopped subsistence hunting throughout the year.
MR. GUY said he'd like to keep up this subsistence, to pass along
to their youngsters. Since 1990, he can no longer hunt or lift a
five-gallon can. He restated that it is not easy subsistence
hunting; sometimes a hunter comes home with nothing or comes home
chilly and wet all over. "But sometimes you get lucky; one day,
you bring home something," he said. Mr. Guy discussed ice fishing
on a river and making an ice hole for fishing for food for the
evening. "The next day, go out subsistence again," he added. "We
keep on trying, every day, never stop. But when we catch one, we
quit for a week and go out for river fish (indisc.)." Referring to
mention that day of False Pass, he indicated his father had told
him the salmon come through there and "spread out from this side,"
with some going to Bristol Bay and some to the Kuskokwim and Yukon
Rivers. "He was a good educator, my dad," he said. "He knew
everything. He traveled everywhere."
Number 494
JOHNNY EVAN came forward to testify, specifying that he lives and
works in Bethel at the AVCP tribal office. He'd been absent most
of the past few years from his village. There are nine people in
his family, one adopted. His 16-year-old son is doing roe now in
the sound. "And to subsist, I can't hunt on Sundays," he said. "I
can only hunt on Saturdays. So, these are trying times for my
oldest boy; he's only 16." He said people live in a convoluted
society, with the mainstream society never agreeing with other
societies on anything to benefit constituents.
MR. EVAN asked, "Keeping this in mind, who are you? Who are we?"
He specified that the question was to everybody. He asked: Who
makes the natural resources and for what purposes? Are we part of
that resource? He explained, "We are but one of the species within
the environment, living in the sake of supporting each other.
Then, who is deteriorating this environment or habitat? This leads
to the state and federal government, who have been against the
benefits of the indigenous societies throughout history."
MR. EVAN said research proves that the state and federal
governments, and even the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA), have been
against the interests of the Natives, while Native societies have
been working for their best interests in persuading the
organizations to benefit the Natives. He asked, "And subsistence,
I have a question: Is it better then or now? Regardless of who
manages the subsistence, it still will be convoluted ... unless the
tribes manage their own affairs. They have their own
capabilities."
MR. EVAN continued, "We do not have problems with subsistence.
It's the state and federal government who are having problems with
the issue. It has been (indisc.) to state and federal government
for interfering with the living environment of the indigenous
societies. How, then, are they interfering? These are through
regulations on who, when, where and how to subsist, with quotas,
bag limits and other unnecessary paperwork."
MR. EVAN stated, "Putting more regulations to the Native societies
will lead to more poverty. We are below the poverty level. We
don't need this restriction. ... I just wish we, the Native people,
the indigenous societies, were free from ... dictations as to when
to subsist." He said they are living within the American
environment that is being deteriorated by the mainstream society.
He concluded by saying his perception of subsistence is that it
will never be resolved.
Number 637
TAD MILLER came forward to testify. He stated, "While I represent
myself in this instance, I wish to draw attention to a resolution
by the Bethel City Council, of which I am a member, that states by
unanimous vote its support for a rural preference for subsistence
activities. Further, it poses the amendments to ANILCA put forward
by Senator Murkowski and Congressperson Young. In addition, it
highlights our support for Native subsistence rights for those
persons living in urban environments. I believe, to our knowledge,
this is the only municipal resolution coming forward to support
the, basically, AFN position on the subsistence question."
MR. MILLER stated, "What is happening here is that state government
is messing with the food chain, and now it is falling victim to
another regulatory predator, which is the federal government. And
until the state legislature is able to understand, in
compassionate, human terms, the need for people in rural areas to
practice what has been a tradition for over 19,800 years, predating
the existence of the federal government, the right to subsistence,
I welcome the federal government's takeover of wildlife
management."
MR. MILLER continued, "As an American citizen, as a world citizen,
as a human being, I think it's appropriate that at least this
government agency, the feds in this case, that have the courage and
wisdom to do what seems just the righteous act in this particular
trying case of people who, for cultural, traditional and
nutritional reasons, practice what is natural to them. Putting
race aside, this is a human question. We understand that welfare
reform is upon us, for excellent reasons. However, this is true
welfare reform in its most dramatic terms. The moral equivalence
would be for the state government to eliminate Carrs, 7-Eleven and
Circle K grocery stores in urban areas by eliminating the
opportunity for subsistence activities for rural citizens." [End
of tape.]
TAPE 97-57, SIDE A
Number 001
FRANK CHIHGLIAK came forward to testify. [Begins mid-speech due to
tape change.] He said he hoped that testimony from others, from
the villages, would not just evaporate but would be carried out.
He noted the empty chairs and pointed out that all the men were out
hunting, as he himself would be doing if he had his way. He
stated, "It's quite logical to manage fish and game." He mentioned
"saving for a rainy day" and storing something in their freezers or
at home. He recalled an elder saying 20 or 25 years before that
"when we quit hunting a certain species of animal or waterfowl,
that somehow they begin to disappear." As a modern Yup'ik, he'd
begun to be skeptical about that theory. However, this summer he'd
heard about murres and other birds that people don't normally hunt
beginning to die, and he'd wondered whether there was truth to the
saying.
MR. CHIHGLIAK pointed out that right now, roughly 20,000 Yup'ik
people reside in that area. They aren't all men; they're not all
hunters. When the Department of Fish and Game reports all species,
they count hundreds of thousands. Therefore, when there are
stipulations or policies regarding management of fish and game, he
believes there shouldn't be stipulations against the livelihood of
the human beings.
MR. CHIHGLIAK said he'd learned to clothe himself with another
culture's attire. However, after eating another culture's food, he
needs to use Pepto-Bismol or Tums because of heartburn.
MR. CHIHGLIAK concluded with a story about a porcupine and a
beaver. The beaver was cutting down all the trees in the
porcupine's "turf," and the porcupine was fed up. "So, he says to
the beaver, `You'd better quit cutting down my trees or else I'm
going to poke you with one of my quills.' So, the beaver, ...
afraid of getting poked with his quills, says, `Well, but I can't
climb ... up to the limbs and then eat like you. So, what I'll do
is I'll gnaw it down, fall it over and then eat.' But then the
porcupine said, `Well, if you keep doing that, it's going to cause
... me problems.' So, the beaver says, `Well, I have to tear down
to eat what you eat.'"
MR. CHIHGLIAK continued, "And I guess the same thing is, ... with
us, we have to tear down our own natural appetite to eat ... a
hamburger or maybe a pork chop. So, ... whether or not the
governmental agencies or fish and game management implement all
kinds of laws and rules about what I should eat as a Yup'ik, ...
what an Aleut should eat as an Aleut, an Athapaskan as an
Athapaskan or et cetera, et cetera, ... those rules and those
stipulations, they're not going to change my natural form of life."
CO-CHAIRMAN HUDSON commented that it was a good analogy. He called
on Charles Hunt, but there was no response.
Number 067
PASCHAL AFCAN came forward to testify, saying he had over a half-
century of living and working with the people in the Yukon-
Kuskokwim delta and all along the coast. He had traveled
extensively throughout the northern and western United States and
Canada, and he had talked to many Natives throughout the Northern
Hemisphere. He'd heard only one philosophy regarding subsistence
and their way of life. He said no one can change those rules and
regulations that the Natives already have, from "way back when."
MR. AFCAN stated, "Two foreign governments, actually, is what I
see, competing to take over management of our lifestyle, our
spiritual, cultural and physical way of life, this subsistence
management. ... And no one, ... Western, Eastern, or Southern or
African, any other culture, cannot understand it well enough to try
to presume to assume governing this way of life. This is just
simply insane, as I see it, trying to take over management of our
way of life."
MR. AFCAN asked whether committee members would have agreed to
needing a license or lunch ticket in order to eat in Bethel, a
Native community. Similarly, an "outside government" was coming to
tell them that they must have licenses and permits, as well as
follow rules and regulations in order to feed themselves and their
families. "This is getting ... sicker and sicker all the time," he
stated. "The only governing entity for this resource is the power
you don't know of, because you're very highly technologically
developed and very low in your spiritual development. This is what
I see about the people and the Western culture."
MR. AFCAN mentioned the presumption of telling them, "this is how
you must use your resources." He asked, "How many of you people up
here have grocery stores in your community?" He said the Native
way of life is centered on natural resources, which are their
supermarkets. "And you assume, ... audaciously come and tell us
there will be no hunting this or that," he said. "You can only
take this much. No one in his right mind will come into your house
with lock and key on your refrigerator and tell you, `You can only
open it at six o'clock in the evening or ten o'clock at night, to
have something to eat. I hope I'm making myself clear."
Number 159
CO-CHAIRMAN HUDSON responded, "Mr. Afcan, you are making yourself
clear. But if you're looking at the groups of us up here, we are
not here to tell you anything. We're here to listen to you, and we
will take it back and see that our colleagues in the House and the
Senate are fully aware of how you testify and the strength of your
conviction. So, I hope you don't believe that anybody up here is
trying to impose upon you anything. All we want to do is to hear
from you, and I think we're hearing that loud and clear."
Number 180
MR. AFCAN replied, "In my time, I have seen Native people being
fooled around with, given this and that. First, they go to the
villages, okay, and tell us, `If you don't believe in this or that,
you are going straight to hell unless you come to our side.
(Indisc.) came along and did the same thing: You take this, you
will get a fine because it's closed during this time. These are
not the indigenous people's rules and regulations in their lives.
And everything that is in nature, provided by nature, is given to
them by a power greater than anyone ... who is presumptuous enough
to try to manage it." He said he'd learned from many villages; he
named several.
MR. AFCAN stated, "The people rely on subsistence. So, if you want
to work with the people on their subsistence way of life, your only
hope, that is to change your state constitution, this constitution,
to where not too many of our communities (indisc.) developing.
This comes from a poll, like this area where everyone is free to
take everything, anything and everything they want, during the
seasons. Now, we need to, if we are going to conserve some of
these resources, we need to restrict this to the indigenous people
of Alaska. ... And this is the opportunity ... to ... fix your
mistakes that you've made in developing the state constitution.
And also, work closer with the people, the indigenous people, in
developing some ways that they can manage their resources
themselves."
MR. AFCAN continued, "And another thing you can do is to make your
scientists, biologists, available to work with the people, of
course, and also to have a lot of community input into your rules
and regulations, if you must have rules and regulations for the
rural people. Otherwise, if you must have rules and regulations,
enforce them on the people who come into Alaska from outside. Look
at down by Bristol Bay. Most of the fishermen are outsiders, with
high-technology fishing instruments and gear. The Natives are very
low in numbers down there. Same way with the Kuskokwim fisheries;
there are a lot of outsiders getting into commercial fishing. And
that's because they need the money."
MR. AFCAN continued, "People from outside need money. And the
easiest way to get it is by using these resources that rightfully
belong to Alaska Natives: the Indians, Aleuts, the Yup'ik,
Inupiaq. And they have to suffer now because these resources have
been raped by these commercial people. And I think it would be
better for the federal government to take over the management of
fish and wildlife on the navigable waters if the state cannot --
going to change their constitution, work with the people, and also
(indisc.) develop fuller communications with all rural villages.
Thank you very much."
Number 236
DICK ANDREW came forward to testify in Yup'ik. Interpreter Trim
Nick spoke almost simultaneously, stating that it had been quite a
while since Mr. Andrew was born; in years past, he'd heard stories
about strife or conflict over issues in the land and how the
Creator would "allow Revelations or a (indisc.) period to occur."
The interpreter stated:
"As we speak of this, I want to add: We as the people within the
(indisc.) of the resources, legislators and lawmakers that came to
our land to write these laws and regulations, whereas we should be
the ones to be managing these resources. I have traveled to
communities here in Alaska. I have seen that they subsist, harvest
and eat the same resources as we, as the Yup'ik people eat. The
fish and game resources that are harvested and used are no
different from those that we use in my area. (Indisc.) in these
communities. Our forefathers have told us to harvest as needed, to
treat the land and its resources with respect, and to harvest
enough resources to last through the winter. ... But those
resources that we harvest in abundance were those that would see us
through the winter.
"And I have seen the sports fishermen ... that catch and release
the fish as they catch them. That is not good. We, as subsistence
users, harvest and would use all parts of what we take. And those
that are fishing for their own (indisc.) of the fish, that ...
should not be happening. ... And as I travel to other parts of the
state, to the other Native communities, I have seen that they
harvest ... in much the same way.
"This fish and game is an essential staple of our diet if we are in
a (indisc.) shortage or in a hungry period, and these type of
regulations or legislation is not going to stop our harvest or our
hunting and fishing. And although bag limits or permit systems or
regulations are imposed, ... this food, these resources are our
livelihood ... for Native Alaskans.
"Even children, Native children, today cannot be without this, the
subsistence food. And in years past, ... regulations have been
established, with statehood, that have been imposed, of the people,
to be followed. And we have lived accordingly. But that these
regulations that ... pretty much are our food source, as the
speakers that have spoken before me, regulations may not (indisc.)
us from harvesting the fish and game resources, because it was our
food. I will stop at this point because there are others that
would like to speak after me."
CO-CHAIRMAN HUDSON thanked Mr. Andrew and the interpreter. He
requested that future testimony and translations not be
simultaneous, in order to have a complete record; Representative
Ivan to translated the request into Yup'ik.
JOBE ABRAHAM came forward and testified in Yup'ik. The interpreter
then stated:
"This is Jobe Abraham from Chefornak. He says that he was born in
Nightmute but had moved to Chefornak because there was no school
established in ... his community until much later. With all the
testimony that's been given, it's understandable. What's been
presented has been that ... we do not want major changes in our
lifestyle and therefore in their regulation regarding subsistence.
But he said that when he was younger, there were very, very few
White people in this area. But those that first arrived said that
this lifestyle that we, as a Yup'ik people, lead would not be
altered. His question is: Is that true?"
CO-CHAIRMAN HUDSON replied that he believed he could speak for the
whole committee here. He stated, "We believe that these unique
subsistence needs that you have would, and probably will, continue
to be provided. It's a question of who does the managing and, ...
technically speaking, how we fashion it into law. But I think
regardless of whether the feds manage and control or whether the
state assumes management, ... there will be providing for your
unique ... lifestyle."
MR. ABRAHAM continued in Yup'ik. The interpreter said:
"Mr. Abraham stated that he ... at this point does not like the
divisions among the groups, the Native groups and I guess the urban
groups, the fighting and the divisiveness in dealing with this
issue, because he had heard, and had been told, from the beginning,
that ... there would not be ... any changes regarding this
lifestyle.
"He stated that prior to statehood there were no regulations or
rules or laws that were imposed on the people in this area, and he
personally himself had never been asked whether he would like for
his land or this land that he lives on to be a part of a state.
And secondly, he has asked the members of this body, the body that
is here, if they personally had been asked whether they would like
for (indisc.) to become a state. And he finalized by saying that
no hands went up to that question.
"In regards to ... fish and game regulation, it is his concern that
if we make a controversy regarding these resources, ... their
management, using the reindeer herds of the past which were
abundant in his childhood as an example, these herds had many
owners. And at some point, they fought over ownership or of the
herds themselves. And in time, these were disseminated or no
longer existed. It is his concern that these resources, as we
proceed to ... bicker and ... to have controversy over these
resources or this issue, that they may have the same fate.
"We, as subsistence users, harvest ... this fish and game as much
as we need. ... We have heard and it has been spoken, and I have
seen [on] television, sports hunters or sports fishermen that, for
recreation, catch and release these fish that are swimming in the
waters. We, as human beings, even with minor wounds or cuts ...
have discomfort. It is my feeling that ... it is the same with
this fish resource.
"It is my concern that we not make a controversy out of this
subsistence issue or this lifestyle, whether you be White, Native,
or of another race. I think we need to be treated equally. And
under the regulatory system, I, at some point, do not want to
subsist hunt or fish with a permit, under the permit system.
"I have heard in the instances that our elders, as leaders or as
educators, are not recognized or acknowledged in this process. And
... it is ... my desire to see them in this process, in this
regulatory and management process, to be involved through co-
management. And it is my question why they have not been
recognized or acknowledged up to this point."
CO-CHAIRMAN HUDSON responded, "I don't have an answer. ... I
suspect that some have been conferred with. And I think that we're
always open, particularly those people who really have the best
information and the longest record of history of it. So, I welcome
it personally, but I don't know why it hasn't been done to the
extent that it should have been in the past, if that's the case."
Number 637
MATTHEW NICOLAI, President, Calista Corporation, came forward to
testify, specifying that Calista Corporation is the regional
corporation for the Yukon-Kuskokwim delta. He welcomed legislators
and noted that the corporation has 13,000-plus shareholders who are
registered under the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act of 1971.
Their subsurface land holdings are over 6.1 million acres of land
in that region.
MR. NICOLAI noted that his testimony was written and that he had
distributed copies at the meeting. He read, with additional
comments:
"Calista Corporation and the Association of Village Council
Presidents (AVCP) were the two primary organizations that
spearheaded the amendments to the Alaska National Interest Lands
Conservation Act that gave protection to rural residents for
subsistence. Those protections we wanted for subsistence were
specific under the commerce clause and the property clause of the
U.S. Constitution.
"I'd like to share with you what Calista, AVCP and the U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service wrote, a property management agreement in 1974
signed by the late Edward Hoffman (ph) and then our chairman and
president, Raven C. Christianson (ph) and also the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife representative, Gordon Watson (ph). This agreement that
was signed was a three-way agreement that gave priority for
protecting subsistence needs of our Native lifestyles. U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service agreed to consult with Calista, AVCP and our
village corporations involving hunting, fishing and trapping on
federal lands. U.S. Fish and Wildlife kept its terms by listening
to our concerns. For the first time in Alaskan history, the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service made a[n] agreement to set up an advisory
council to make recommendations to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service for management of fish and game in our region."
TAPE 97-57, SIDE B
Number 001
The document from which Mr. Nicolai was reading, in part, continued
as follows, although most of this portion is not on tape:
"This agreement was so successful that it led to development of a
statewide system of what is now known as the federal subsistence
board for the state. We are fortunate. The U.S. Constitution has
plenary powers to regulate and invoke its constitutional authority
over Native affairs to protect and provide opportunity for
continued subsistence uses on public lands by Native and non-Native
rural residents."
MR. NICOLAI stated: "That is why Title VIII of ANILCA was included
to protect subsistence for rural residents. The U.S. Congress has
continually asserted its treaty powers to protect the environment,
including fish and wildlife. That is why several segments of the
federal statutes are written to regulate hunting activities of
Alaska Natives. I want to name a few of those. These statutes are
numerous since statehood and also when the Native claims was
passed. The Migratory Bird Treaty Act, the [Marine] Mammal
Protection Act, the Endangered Species Act, International
Convention for the Regulation of Whaling, the Fur Seal Convention,
Agreement on the Conservation of Polar Bears, Convention for the
Conservation of Migratory Caribou and their Environment, and the
Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 all affect
hunting and fishing rights of Alaska Natives.
"Subsistence hunting and fishing for Alaska Natives is not a
problem. It is a problem of the State of Alaska boards of fish and
game. Those boards do not listen to Native subsistence users.
They listen to commercial and sport fishing and the sport guiding
industry. For that reason, many of our Native organizations have
become accustomed to lawsuits to bring about fairness to the
subsistence issue. The trust responsibility of the federal
government towards Alaska Natives did not cease in 1971. ANCSA,
like many of you have heard through the newspapers in Anchorage,
many times I hear from the non-Native society, which I live
amongst, that ANCSA abolished our traditional tribal rights. It
did not. Therefore, the past 25 years, tribal governments have
made numerous agreements with the federal government to manage fish
and game on federal lands.
"Subsistence ... is a misunderstood economy that has not been
thoroughly studied. The volume of fish and wildlife consumed by
rural residents has an unwritten cash value that the state's
bureaucracy does not understand. Subsistence is a priceless
commodity that the state cannot take away from Alaska Natives. ...
Even ... with the technology and population changes, our Native
people still live off the lands.
"How should the state measure subsistence economy? It's very
difficult to replace subsistence with a legal tender process.
Subsistence is a right for Alaska Natives. Many Natives may live
in urban Alaska, like me. And there's 27,000 of us that live in
Anchorage alone. I want to give an example that I want to use as
myself. Even though I have a right to hunt and fish ..., even
though we have the right to hunt for sea mammals, I don't know how
to hunt sea mammals. Even though that right is given to me, I do
not go out and go seal hunting because I was not accustomed to that
process."
MR. NICOLAI said 27,000 living in Anchorage don't go out and shoot
sea otters or whales, despite having the right. Still, they have
a "yearning to share that amongst our own that understand that
system." For example, relatives coming through Anchorage share
foods with him, his family and other relatives. Mr. Nicolai
stated:
"Whether it's dry fish, whether it's seal oil, many rural and urban
Natives still barter for those foods. Subsistence directly and
indirectly affects the state's and federal welfare economy.
Welfare economy is a cash-value system, versus subsistence economy
for Alaska Natives is a cultural-value system. Welfare cannot
replace the subsistence economy, period. Alaska Natives have
historically managed fish and wildlife through this cultural-value
system where depletion of any type of wildlife resources is not
allowed.
"Many educated biologists do not understand why Alaska Natives
sometimes do not hunt or fish certain species of wildlife at
certain times, even though those species are open for taking for
personal consumption, because we listen to our elders. Recently,
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has been the catalyst for
developing a system where Native cultural values are used to manage
fish and wildlife in our region. They have been working very well
with our village leadership through the co-management system to
allow Native values to manage fish and game in this region.
"The State of Alaska boards of fish and game have not reached out
with our village subsistence users. Subsistence economy has to be
categorized, but the correct classification must be identified in
the state's domestic product with an urgency of an Alaska Native
value.
"Over the past ten years, the State of Alaska's Department of Fish
and Game has failed immeasurably to manage fish in our region.
Subsistence fishing was not allowed at certain times in several
summers, while commercial fishing was allowed earlier when one of
the -- Mr. Guy talked about ... False Pass fisheries, while they're
allowed to catch our salmon headed to our rivers in this area. The
state Board of Fish[eries] listened to educated biologists that
favored commercial fisheries. The State of Alaska values cash
priority for commercial fishing [more] than that of a subsistence
priority for rural Alaskans. Who has priority for the fish that is
swimming back to its spawning grounds? It is time that the State
of Alaska - and the legislature has to be the leader in this -
rewrite its whole system of fish and game management by abolishment
of the state board of game and fish and replace them with regional
advisory boards.
"Recently, the Governor's subsistence task force developed a
proposal that ... defined priority, customary, traditional and a
standard of protection for subsistence harvest and opportunities
for urban Natives to subsist if they are eligible. This proposal
is ... just a start for Alaskans to participate in the development
of new rules and regulations. However, Calista Corporation will
not support any amendments to ANILCA that remove rural preference
under Title VIII of ANILCA and federal oversight provided under
Section 807 of ANILCA. Federal courts have been fair and just to
Native Americans.
"Who should have priority for subsistence usage? Calista has
historically supported Native preference at all times. Even if we
have adopted dominant non-Native ways of hunting and fishing, we
still have ... strong cultural ... ties with our subsistence way of
life. Our yearnings for Native foods are still ... the cornerstone
of our family values. Although my family lives in urban Alaska, we
need Native foods such as dry fish, dried meats and other Native
foods we gather from the `bush.'
"As Alaska Native people, we have not had the opportunity to
participate - what earlier many of our elders were talking about -
to participate in the statehood process, in writing of the land
claims, and writing of fish and game management for the state.
What is customary and traditional to Alaska Natives for subsistence
is based upon respect for conservation and understanding of `no-
waste policy.' Customary and traditional values are taught to us
by our family structures, to use only what we need. That means
gathering of foods from the land and water, ... based on sustaining
and maintaining of culture needs of our daily lives.
"Alaska Natives today have several exemptions for hunting sea
mammals. Many urban Natives can hunt and harvest seals, walruses,
whales, sea otters and many other sea mammals under the Marine
Mammal Protection Act. Just because we were given that hunting
right, we do not abuse the system. Unfortunately, American history
indicates that the non-Natives abuse their hunting and fishing
privileges. The buffalo, the mountain lion, the wolf, the elk,
salmon, the steelhead are prime examples that the federal
government had to exercise their plenary powers to seek protection
of them by federal ... regulatory process.
"Alaska Natives must be given a first right of refusal for
harvesting subsistence needs for fish and wildlife by bag limits
and proxy hunting, regardless of where we live. It is important to
write legislation that will develop regional councils that have the
power to manage fish and wildlife through a public hearing process,
and have committee members without conflict serving them. That's
what we have, a problem in these two boards today. Their conflict
is so strong that the subsistence becomes ... the last category.
Yet in the state regulations, there is a paragraph that talks about
sustained yield basis. Sustained yield basis does not work.
Sustained yield basis means `take the fish, take the game and
forget the subsistence hunter and fisherman.' That's what it is
today. Alaska Natives, we must be given that right.
"We are in favor of federal jurisdiction when the state is out of
compliance. All the waterways and lands should be included in this
process. Native lands are not public property. They have been
deemed as Indian ... properties under federal courts. Those lands
are just like Indian properties in the Lower 48 states. In the
event the state does not come into compliance, the federal
government should take over all duties of fish and wildlife
management in a timely manner. October 1 is coming around fast.
The legislature doesn't want to meet because of basic politics of
misunderstanding.
"We do not want to see changes to Sections 803, 804, 805, 806, 807,
813, 814. And just like federal courts, we recognize ANILCA as
Indian law. These sections, or the amendments, I want to recognize
a couple of individuals that put in a lot of these amendments; and
he was here earlier. Nelson Anaka (ph) was the land manager for
Calista, and Carl Jack (ph) was president of AVCP. They spent
weeks down in Washington, D.C., putting these amendments ... into
ANILCA, because we lost them under Section 4B of ANCSA. We spent
considerable time. And I had just started in Calista in 1975.
I've been with the company for 23 years.
"Only can we ... be protected by ANILCA under this present hostile
system. As Alaska Natives, we have sacrificed our lifestyles
before and after statehood. As Alaska Natives, we cannot just
quietly sit and wait on subsistence. Only when subsistence becomes
Alaska Native, only, can we agree to remove rural preference under
ANILCA. As Alaska Natives, we do not abuse our privileges to hunt
or fish. A `no-net policy' is not good enough for Calista
Corporation. We need to improve that no-net policy above and
beyond what we have at present. It is very difficult to authorize
the state to manage fish and game as they have done today, because
we know in the future the state will look for ways to cancel new
regulations in the future. That is the reason why Calista and AVCP
worked hard in the 1970s to protect subsistence for our
shareholders. Subsistence is not a negotiable issue. We will not
lose it."
MR. NICOLAI thanked the committee and concluded, "We need your help
to work with us and bring about positive changes by listening to
rural Alaskans, not `urbanian' Alaskans."
Number 173
JOSEPH ALEXIE, President, Tuluksak IRA Council, came forward to
testify on behalf of his village. He stated, "I don't have a
million dollars like Governor Knowles to hire attorneys to talk for
me and stay back home and listen." He indicated his village's
position is that while the state and federal governments fight over
subsistence, his village would continue with subsistence as they
had in the past, including the tradition of helping elders and
those in need from the village and surrounding areas. They will
not tolerate the "sports people" coming to their hunting grounds
and looking for trophies or doing catch-and-release fishing for
fish upon which they depend upon for subsistence use.
CO-CHAIRMAN HUDSON asked that those with written testimony
abbreviate their testimony in order to hear from as many people as
possible. He assured participants that written comments would be
reviewed carefully.
Number 195
FRED SMITH came forward to testify, reading from a written
statement. He said on the surface it may seem that subsistence is
a management issue, and it may be the state's intention to deal
with it that way. He stated:
"As an Alaska Native, this is not a management issue. It is a
threat to my livelihood, existence and future. As you listen to
Alaska Natives here, there are no compromises and therefore nothing
to negotiate.
"Regarding all federal Indian law as it applies to Alaska,
including the subsistence issue, the State of Alaska and its
legislature must respect and accept the rights and practices of
Alaska Natives. No federal legislation has abolished tribes. The
feds recognize tribes and have even reinstated recognition of
certain tribes in the Lower 48. In Alaska, even if Congress
established ... corporations versus reservations, tribes remain to
exist as local governing bodies. The State of Alaska must
recognize the government-to-government relationship that Alaska
tribes have with the United States. This relationship has resulted
... in numerous Congressional actions affecting and/or pertaining
to the existence and well-being of Alaska Native tribes.
"After ANCSA and in ANILCA, Congress dealt with subsistence. It's
unfortunate that the wording "Native" was changed to "rural," but
Congressional intent in ANILCA Title VIII was to accept and
reconfirm the rights of Alaska Natives' continued dependence and
access to subsistence and fish and game resources. That's my
understanding. If the state cannot respect and accept these
federal premises and actions, then managing fish and game
activities that encompass the tribal-federal relationship is not a
good idea."
MR. SMITH said as he sees it, the problem is the state
Administration's and legislature's ignorance of federal Indian law,
its application to Alaska Natives, and lack of respect for Alaska
Native people. If the state doesn't consider the rights and
practices of Alaska Natives as tribes, there will be no resolution
to the subsistence issue. "The same will apply to the Indian
country debate," he added. Mr. Smith said all morning, they'd been
listening to Native people telling them the state cannot operate
and come to resolution dealing with the issues in the narrow scope
as defined in Alaska's constitution: one state, one people. He
concluded, "We are a different people." He asked that members
share with people in Juneau that there are tribes in Alaska.
Number 250
CO-CHAIRMAN HUDSON called a recess for dinner at 5 p.m. He called
the meeting back to order at 6:27 p.m.
Number 272
MOSES PETER, Village of Tuluksak, came forward to testify. He said
Alaska Natives have accepted the challenge of the "survival way of
life since time immemorial, 1867." He indicated in 1877, Edward
William Nelson (ph), began biology and natural history studies of
Eskimos in Western Alaska for the Smithsonian Institution,
including making collections from the then-little-known region. He
stated, "Generally, people treated him with kindness, and because
of his desire to buy old objects, many of which they cast aside,
they regard Nelson [with] a good deal of amusement, asking, `Where
is the man who buys good-for-nothing things?' Nelson was
instructed to gather information and to make collections relating
to this little-known region of Alaska. Nelson observed that the
people living here were amongst the most primitive people found in
Alaska and retained their ancestors' customs and their character.
They present one of the richest ... fields open to the ethnologist
anywhere in the North. They retain ... their complex system of
religion, festivals and other ceremonies from ancient times. Their
work in ivory and animal bones, evidence of great skill, and all
their weapons and utensils were made well."
MR. PETER continued, "He made efforts to learn their language,
record their myths and legends, games and ceremonies, touching also
on their political and social organizations. ... He came to his
observations of Alaska Natives likewise with the same (indisc.) eye
and fair perceptions exhibited in his descriptions of Alaska's ...
land and animals. During the years from 1916 through 1927, he was
a constant advocate of wildlife conservation, fostering bird-
banding programs, and became a key figure in negotiating leading to
the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and is still (indisc.) legislation
(indisc.) and the history of wildlife conservation in North
America. His interest in Alaska continued throughout his life. He
was instrumental in passage of the Alaska game law of 1925 and
helped develop policies to improve conditions for domestic reindeer
in Alaska."
MR. PETER stated, "In the summer of 1982, community members of
Tuluksak noted that the Tuluksak River water was starting to be
polluted. We found the cause of the problem, and the people of
Tuluksak reported the water quality problem to the Department of
Fish and Game." He said the agency and the community "set down"
the placer mining company. In 1986, a report was written by James
N. Fadden (ph) of the Department of Political Science at the
University of Alaska Fairbanks. The report was titled, "Placer
Mining and Salmon Habitat: Subsistence as a Policy Problem."
MR. PETER continued, "In the second paragraph he wrote, `The
purpose of the research project was to examine the value basis for
a conflict between economic development and subsistence use. By
value, I mean the things that people view as important to them. I
described the beliefs and values of people involved in this
controversy but do not examine the extent to which the facts
comprising the issue support those values. This must be left for
a more extended study of the problem. Looking at the beliefs at
work in the conflict, however, is important. The way the people
view a problem plays a critical role in forming a political
atmosphere in which policy decisions are made.'"
MR. PETER said "the Alaska National Interest Conservation Act of
1980, also known as Alaska lands act" is a restoration act of the
Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act of 1971. He read from it, with
a few minor word changes:
"... Congress finds and declares that the continuation of the
opportunity for subsistence use by rural residents of Alaska, ...
including both Natives and non-Natives, on the public land and by
Alaska Natives on their Native lands is essential to their
physical, economic, traditional and Native culture existence; (2)
the situation ... in Alaska is unique in that, in most cases, no
practical alternative means are available to replace the food
supplies and other items gathered from fish and wildlife which
supply persons dependent on subsistence use; [(3)] continuation of
the opportunity for subsistence use of resources on public and
other lands in Alaska is threatened by the increasing population of
Alaska ...;
"(4) in order to fulfill the policies and purposes of the Alaska
Native Claims Settlement Act and as a matter of equity, it is
necessary for the Congress to invoke its constitutional authority
over Native affairs and its constitutional authority under the
property clause and the commerce clause to protect and preserve the
opportunity for continued subsistence use on the public lands ...
by Natives and non-Native rural residents; [and (5)] the national
interest in the proper regulation, protection, and conservation of
fish and wildlife on public lands in Alaska and continuation [of]
that opportunity for a subsistence way of life by the inhabitants
of Alaska requires that an administrative structure be established
for the purpose of enabling people who have personal knowledge of
local conditions and requirements [to have] a meaningful role in
the management of fish and game and of subsistence use on the
public lands in Alaska."
MR. PETER concluded by saying the primary purpose of the Alaska
lands act was to "conserve fish and wildlife populations and
habitat in their natural diversity." It was to fulfill
international treaty obligations of the United States with respect
to fish and wildlife, fish and game, and their habitats, to provide
opportunities for continued subsistence use by the local residents.
Number 467
ANDY SHARP came forward to testify in Yup'ik. The interpreter
stated:
"This is Andy Sharp from Quinhagak. In Yup'ik, his name is
(Indisc.). He stated that he was anxious to see you as a
committee, was curious to see what you are ... comprised of, as
legislators. He was born in Quinhagak. He's 76 years old and
perhaps an elder to all of you committee members. He says that he
remembers the earlier legislators and had respect for them, because
I guess on the campaign trail they'd bring trinkets and sweets and
... were good to the constituents here.
"He says his ancestors, his predecessors, are Yup'ik, as we are all
Yup'ik now. We subsist on our traditional foods, the stink heads,
the akutaq, the seal oil. And a lot of the foods, the traditional
foods that we (indisc.), we and the Yup'ik, the people that first
made contact here, ... the missionaries, ate of this food as well.
He said that ... he thought at the time that they were very wealthy
people, but now that he looks back, they were not, because they
consumed a lot of the same foods that he eats here.
"Mr. Sharp said that ... he is not anxious to speak, or adamant to
speak in front of you as a body regarding his concerns. He has ...
a minimal education, although he has not completed any grades. In
the past, he has worked as a miner, when mining was first
introduced into this area. And with his limited education, he has
been able to discern what little orders, short as they may be, ...
were given to him by ... the miners that were here. You, as
English-speakers, are hearing a lot of what we, as Yup'ik speakers,
are saying, and vice versa, with this medium of, I guess
translation is ... what he's referring to, by people that do not
(indisc.)."
TAPE 97-58, SIDE A
Number 001
[A portion of Mr. Sharp's Yup'ik testimony was cut off by the tape
change.] The interpreter stated:
"Andy stated that he grew up with his grandmother. His
grandfather, although they didn't have the means of transport to
take him ... to check his fish traps or his (indisc.--sound cut
out) business that he was doing. And ... amongst this travel, he
died at some point in Bristol Bay. He stated that although ...
they were limited as far as, like I said, means of travel, these
early people traveled extensively, since ... the lifestyle was
seasonal. And as a ... younger person, he was aware of reindeer
and used to hear of ... the caribou herds. The reindeer with the
short antler is called the (indisc.). And these are becoming
abundant in this area at this point. And their harvest is now
regulated through season, and now we are not allowed to harvest
them on the side. ...
"... He came from a family of boys. He recollects the grandmother
telling the family, in his words, to quit screwing around or
playing around, and for simply laughing. For recreation as
children, they didn't have much. ... They played tag, football. ...
But those people that came in first from the outside, ... the first
were the missionaries, followed by the teachers and then the
miners. And although they were few in numbers, to them at that
time, these miners came in large force.
"The message he wanted to give with the recollecting what his
grandmother used to say was that we need to think once in awhile.
We need to meditate. And ... as he understands it, that is the
message for the essence of your visit here, to collect ... some of
the testimony and to meditate on what you hear and to return this
message back to where the decisions or the laws or the legislation
is made. And we, on this side, as your constituents, need to do
the same.
"He wanted to mention the long-held tradition of not (indisc.) fish
or game on top of the land but to vary it and respect or in
reverence ... to the resource. He also mentioned ... the sports
fishermen and kind of made ... a comparison to our tradition of not
throwing away game. And where he's from, Quinhagak, there's a lot
of sports fishing activity that goes on in that area. He says he's
appalled at the wanton waste of the fish that is done ... by the
sports fishermen. And with the wildlife refuges and the prospect
of the federal takeover of navigable waters and ... the fish and
the game in these areas, he made mention of that. And ... as an
example, he used the brown bear as diminishing for ... a game
source that in the past had disappeared but came back, because
there was some activity or some talk on why this species was
disappearing. He thinks that it was due to the recreational
activity, or the abundance of it, in that area that scared ...
these bears away.
"And finally, in regard to ... these bears, he mentioned the
tagging of some of these game animals, and the bears in particular,
how the cat or dogs or people in this area, he recalls three ...
instances where there have been bear attacks. And he's attributing
... this occurrence to some of the tagging that's going on, because
even animals, he says, do not forget where they have been abused.
Number 184
The interpreter explained that the last segment regarded elders.
Mr. Sharp had referred to a time when the world was "thin," when
the earth's resources were plentiful. Although perhaps not meant
literally, things "used to move on their own, as needed." For
example, a woman would walk out of the sod house or dwelling,
forgetting the honey bucket, which would then come forth as if in
response to that need. Or one might need a match to light a fire.
When one said they needed an instrument, it would materialize.
The interpreter concluded, "And finally, he stated that he thanks
you for this opportunity but does not see ... the top-most point in
your hierarchy; the Governor is not here. And that's all he had."
Number 224
REPRESENTATIVE IVAN pointed out that one of Mr. Sharp's comments
had been overlooked. He reported, "Just before his closing, he
stated that in his review of the history, this has been our land.
And he referred to that we should be governing it. And we haven't
consented to giving it away."
Number 234
DARIO NOTTI came forward to testify. He mentioned a comment that
he believed may have come from Dick Bishop, "something to the
effect that, `if they want subsistence, let them have it, but let
them do it in the old ways: no more snow machines, no more guns.'"
MR. NOTTI recounted some family history. His grandparents had
lived a subsistence lifestyle, but his father was sent away to
school and never made it back to where he was born. Mr. Notti
himself was born five years before statehood. By then, there were
laws saying children had to go to school. No more could they go
way up to the mountains for spring camp, then float down when the
fish got there, into the main rivers. To live the subsistence
lifestyle, they had to send their children away to school. To stay
with their children, they had to stay where the schools were, which
is what his father chose to do. Fortunately, because of the Hootch
case, schools were built in the villages. No longer did people
have to make a choice, because they could live a subsistence
lifestyle and be where the schools were. However, children still
can't spend a whole spring away from the village. Too often,
subsistence is limited to weekends or perhaps a week taken away
from school.
MR. NOTTI explained that they need gasoline-powered equipment in
order to travel at higher speeds. They can't spend the whole
spring or summer in one camp, as their great-grandparents and
grandparents did. "But still, I live a subsistence lifestyle," he
said. "My son subsistence hunts, and hopefully my great-
grandchildren will be subsistence hunting. Of course, it will
never be like it was, at least as long as we have to be where a
school is. It will always be a slightly altered subsistence
lifestyle. But who knows, with the Internet and satellite
communications, ... maybe my grandchildren ... won't have to stay
around the village where the school is." He emphasized that even
though there had been changes, subsistence is still a way of life.
Number 342
CO-CHAIRMAN HUDSON said it makes him wish to spend considerable
time out there moose hunting and doing similar activities as well.
Although his children are grown, he has grandchildren. He stated,
"I think you express a feeling that is highly desired and has great
value to the human soul."
REPRESENTATIVE DYSON asked for confirmation that Mr. Notti wasn't
asking that compulsory education be eliminated.
MR. NOTTI clarified that he didn't want for compulsory education to
be done away with. "It might be nice if a teacher was willing to
follow us to wherever the subsistence camp was," he added. "But I
think that's unlikely."
Number 362
ANASTASIA HOFFMAN came forward to testify. She spoke briefly in
Yup'ik, following which she read from prepared testimony in
English:
"I think it is important to understand what one is saying when we
say we live a subsistence lifestyle. I would like you to take a
moment and think how often you all, within one week, eat
subsistence foods. In the rural areas, people eat subsistence food
on a daily basis. Using myself as an example, this week I ate
dried pike fish, herring eggs with seal oil, akutaq, crane soup,
moose spaghetti and caribou soup. And I did not know you were all
coming today, so it wasn't preplanned. This menu is representative
of many families in this area and throughout rural Alaska.
Subsistence is a daily reality for us.
"Whenever my mother would travel from Bethel to Anchorage or to the
Lower 48, without a doubt she would bring with her a bag of dry
fish. She couldn't be without it, not even for a short weekend.
If you conducted a survey in rural schools, asking students to tell
you what they ate for dinner, overwhelmingly the students would say
soup. And it is not Campbell's soup or Dinty Moore. It is fish
soup, goose soup, moose soup, caribou soup, seal soup and duck
soup.
"Subsistence food does not only provide sustenance but also
nutrients that people will not find in the local village stores.
If any one of you walk around a store in a rural village, you will
not see an abundance of fruits or vegetables. You will not see
meat and poultry. If rural people did not have subsistence,
village families and children would live on Pilot Bread and Minute
Rice.
"Let's think for a minute why villages are where they are. People
settled in these areas because of fish and game, for survival.
They needed the subsistence resources to live. The villages were
not settled by accident. They are each strategically located for
a particular type of subsistence resource, be it fish, berries,
waterfowl or game. So, we can say that if there were no
subsistence resources, there would be no villages. ... We are here
as a result of subsistence. We remain as a result of subsistence.
"I think the majority of people in Alaska, rural and urban, support
a rural preference because they understand the reliance rural
people have on subsistence resources. This issue has only come
about as a result of a few people who felt deprived. But I know
that if those few people came to the villages and saw how much we
in rural Alaska relied on subsistence, they too would agree that
there is a need for a rural preference. Thank you for coming and
thanks for listening."
Number 450
BONNIE KOWCHEE came forward to testify, speaking first in Yup'ik.
In English, she said she was born and raised in Bethel. She
stated, "I was brought up in two worlds, very confusing. It was
confusing to be in the White man's world, but I was still brought
up very traditional, and I was given the gift to be brought up to
know my identity, to who I am, and ... who I am is because of my
upbringing. I was also encouraged to go to college, and I am a
social worker by profession. But right now, I'm a mom; I just had
a baby. ... I'm very nervous, but I want to speak from my heart
because I grew up on the land, and since I was very small, ... even
though I was brought up in this (indisc.) little city, I was taught
to respect my elders, to respect the food that was given, and to
always thank the Lord for the food." Ms. Kowchee read from a
prepared statement:
"What is subsistence to me? Subsistence sustains us Native people,
physically, spiritually and mentally. Subsistence is not a word
but a way of life. My whole life has evolved around subsistence.
Much of my fond memories growing up have been living a subsistence
life. As a child, with my mom towering over me, walking on the
spongy tundra was where I got my first wild eggs. It was a rite of
passage for me. A feast was then given in that honor of gathering
from the land.
"Then, when I became a young lady, my dad trapped squirrel for my
... fur parka, thus signifying the rite of passage in becoming a
woman. The parka, in addition, displays family crests and stories
of a long time ago. Just recently, my two nephews caught their
first catches; giving the food to elders is also another indication
of rites of passage to manhood. Feasting is yet to occur.
"My husband, who is Inupiaq, from White Mountain, learned this
country for the past eight years, just recently caught a moose.
The catch was shared with those in need of food. Elders,
especially, with their elated eyes, warmed our hearts as well as
theirs.
"Physically, throughout the seasons we gather food. The food is
not only for consumption but for clothing in the harsh environment
we live in. Spring, summer, fall and winter we physically get our
food. We walk and exercise, making our bodies one with the land,
for the land and the people are one.
"Spiritual aspects are evident by respecting all living things on
the land. For example, when my husband caught a bear, he buried
the head, pointed it from where it originated from, thanked God.
The spirit of the bear then released the spirit back to its
homeland. Many other rituals such as this occur when food is
caught from the land. So, it is not just food. It has spiritual
aspects.
"Mentally, subsisting off the land brings a silent peace within
ourselves. It is therapeutic to live the way of life we do. We
are busy, engulfed, [and] we focus on the task on hand, forgetting
the worldly issues. Subsistence is not only for consumption but
has vital elements such as the physical and spiritual and mental
aspects. ... And it is more than a way of life. It defines who we
are, our identity, our livelihood and our existence. And I thank
you for letting me speak, and God bless you at the task at hand.
And I hope you remember that subsistence isn't just a word. It's
who we are. It defines us, who we are."
Number 557
JAMES A. PETER came forward to testify in Yup'ik. The interpreter
stated:
"This is James Peter from Bethel. He started out by saying he just
became aware of this public hearing this afternoon; otherwise, he
would have been here earlier. He says that since way back, we've
been dealing with the subsistence issue through the years but have
not come to a resolution. As a Yup'ik people, this subsistence, as
many have stated, is a lifestyle. And in doing so, sharing has
been a big part of it. It is a Yup'ik tenet that has been passed
down for generations, to share resources, fish and game ... that is
harvested. He also wanted to show his gratitude for Representative
Ivan. Since legislators have started under the state system, he
hears of Senators that are there but ... personally does not see
some fruits or ... some things that are done that might benefit the
people here. In particular, he wants to thank Representative Ivan
for ... the openings for the caribou season that occurred last
winter."
Number 650
REPRESENTATIVE IVAN responded briefly in Yup'ik.
Number 660
MR. PETER continued in Yup'ik. [The beginning of the translation
was cut off by the tape change.]
TAPE 97-58, SIDE B
Number 001
The interpreter stated [begins mid-speech]:
"... managers that came within his time, they were situated at the
mouth of the Kuskokwim and monitored and oversaw the harvest of
fish. But this occurred only ... in the mouth of the river. And
at that time, there were no limits as to ... harvesting. But at
this day and age, not only for fish alone but for other game as
well, there are limits on the harvest. That's all he has."
Number 023
GARY VANASSE came forward to testify. He thanked the committee for
conducting these meetings and said he wished the Senate would
follow suit. He stated:
"I think subsistence should be further defined. I think sport
should be defined. Does the fact that I enjoy my hunting and
fishing trip that I intend to take next week make me a sport
hunter? I don't think so. I don't know what a sport looks like.
I don't know what a sport tastes like. I don't know if you can
shoot bulls or cow sports. I'm not a sport hunter, and I never
have been a sport hunter. I've left many a rack out in the field.
Many people take them; some of us don't. If I happen to get a
pretty one, I will take it. But most important, I am out there for
the need.
"The other thing I hear that really distresses me a lot is I hear
people - whether they intend to or not, I do not know - turn this
into a Native-versus-non-Native issue. That disappoints me
immensely. I am a "Gussak." I live in a Native land; that's
obvious. My wife is also a Gussak. One of my children is a
Gussak; one of my children is a Native. In our household, we don't
see each other as being any different. We eat the same foods at
the same table. Those foods come from our freezer. You can call
it subsistence, you can call it sport, you can call it whatever you
choose. Sustenance is probably a better word.
"I think that subsistence is not really as much of an issue as we
think it is. The only time it becomes ... an issue is in declining
resources. If we have low populations, subsistence takes priority.
I believe that should be the case. If we don't have those low
resources, it's a non-issue. It's a non-problem. Because if we're
going to have seasons, seasons are to protect the resource. And I
happen to think the Alaska Department of Fish and Game, with rare
exception, does an exceptional job of protecting the resource. You
can ask these elders. Ask. The lower Yukon did not have moose 40
years ago, you know. ... Read ... Sidney Huntington's (ph) book,
`Shadows on the Koyukuk.' That is an amazing book. I'd also like
to point out that Mr. Huntington, as most of you probably know, is
of mixed blood, that many, many years ago, we had people other than
Natives here. This is not recognizing the fact the Natives are the
original indigenous peoples of this land. That is true. I do
believe that.
"But the subsistence issue and the taking of fish and game and
other resources for sustenance is an Alaskan issue. It's not a
Native issue. It's not a Gussak issue. It's not an urban-versus-
rural issue. It's an Alaskan issue. If the federal government
comes here and takes over, it will no longer be an Alaskan issue.
I have a real problem with that. I know many people are advocating
federal takeover. I think that not all of us realize what's going
to happen if that happens, the bad effects of that.
"I'd like to point out the emergency order that the gentleman just
pointed out on caribou season. There's been a large influx of
Mulchatna caribou herd coming into Bethel, been over a hundred
years since they've seen it. Four years ago, they had an emergency
order season. They opened it up. They said, `You can take these
caribou. They're here. They're an ... overly abundant resource.'
The federal government, as most of us know, or will find out,
doesn't react that fast. They can't, for whatever reason. They're
mired down in paperwork probably.
"I believe that subsistence is alive and well and practiced daily.
I see it all the time, as the gentleman pointed out earlier, you
know. (Indisc.) subsistence foods. I believe that. You see it.
You go anywhere out in this region, certainly, and anywhere in
rural Alaska, for that matter, and it's true. And I practice it
also. ... I believe that subsistence needs to be protected. I
think it might need some regulation and some definition.
"Subsistence doesn't necessarily mean to me that, `Oh, we don't
have a season; we get whatever we want, whenever we can and however
we can.' I don't believe in that. I believe in, number one,
protecting the resource, managing the resource for the maximum
sustained yield. It means `enough for everybody.' There are more
people and more efficient methods than ever before. We all know
that. Taking of game is easier than it ever has been. There's a
need to consider those things, even when ... we come up with
regulations on subsistence. But we can do that. We can come up
with regulations ... for subsistence, as well as we can for sport
hunting and sport fishing. We can do that as a state, as a people.
"When the federal government takes over, we'll lose that control.
There's going to have a lot of influence on the federal government
that's going to come from outside the state, outside this area.
And a lot of decision-making will be made by people and people's
constituencies that are not affected at all by this. If we keep
this control within the state, ... I think ... the Governor's task
force is probably a good place to start. But I see a lot more work
to be done. Keep it in the state. We'll hash it out. We'll fight
it out. We'll figure it out. We'll write regulations. But let's
not lose it, because if the federal government takes over, every
single Alaskan has lost. And I truly believe that. Thank you."
Number 104
CO-CHAIRMAN HUDSON said that concluded testimony from those
speaking locally. He again took testimony by teleconference.
NICK O. NICK testified via teleconference, first in Yup'ik and then
in English. He said there are many religions; everyone has a
religion, one way or the other. Even United States money says, "In
God We Trust." He was encouraging everyone present to pray to the
higher authority, to ask God for help in guiding members, as
overseeing of other people is a stressful occupation.
MR. NICK explained that he grew up without his father, a full
Yup'ik Eskimo who was successful despite lack of formal education,
even kindergarten. His father had traveled to Washington, D.C.,
where he met Congress members, and Mr. Nick assumed he also met the
President of the United States.
MR. NICK emphasized that as a child, he'd always been taught by his
elders and his mother to not waste anything. Now, he encourages
his relatives to respect Mother Nature and to not pollute water,
for example. He believes things are getting out of control in this
day and age, and there needs to be some kind of control. He spoke
of the Bible, the Creator, respect for elders, respect for Mother
Nature and trying to reach a resolution with unity.
Number 240
REPRESENTATIVE IVAN, who had to catch an airplane at 8 p.m.,
thanked Co-Chairman Hudson and members of the committee for holding
the hearing in Bethel and said he'd like them to also consider one
in Dillingham. He said this had been a learning experience even
for himself, as far as the historical aspect, the testimony and
some of the good recommendations made. He concluded, "I thank you
for the opportunity, and we'll keep in touch and try to resolve
this issue that's so important to all of us."
CO-CHAIRMAN HUDSON reminded members to take their committee packets
to Ketchikan for that hearing.
Number 273
KATHLEEN POLTY testified via teleconference from Pilot Station.
Originally from Aniak, she'd grown up "living in subsistence" with
her parents. In the summers, she'd go to her grandparents', where
she watched them prepare and store food for the winter. She also
lived in Aniak with her uncles, who did subsistence both summer and
winter. To her and her family, subsistence is putting away and
storing food for the winter. In addition, her husband must be able
to hunt moose during the winter because they don't always have
money for store-bought meat. Even though her daughter lives in the
city, Ms. Polty still brings or sends her subsistence foods. It is
important to be able to continue to subsistence hunt and fish in
her area.
CO-CHAIRMAN HUDSON asked how long dried fish and meat last.
MS. POLTY explained that they obtain and prepare fish in the spring
and summer, smoking it for two to three weeks until dried. They
put away their dried fish in buckets and store it in a cool place
or in the freezer for the winter. She puts away five or six gallon
buckets of dried fish; that lasts all winter.
Number 350
REPRESENTATIVE NICHOLIA commented that dried fish or meat is a
delicacy. She stated, "Our dried fish could last probably a year
and still be good, but it is so good that is doesn't last that
long." She expressed appreciation for Ms. Polty's testimony.
Number 380
ROBERT NICK testified via teleconference from Nunapitchuk. He
noted that the menu described for the week by his niece, Anastasia
Hoffman, is the menu of most households. "It is delicious," he
stated. "It is the menu in my home. I'm sure it is the menu in
many homes in village Alaska. And it is for that that I'm calling,
for the rural village." He stated support for a rural preference.
He'd also like the legislature to "initiate the rural initiative
vote." He stated, "I understand that that is possible as early as
1998."
MR. NICK spoke of a hypothetical village with a population of 300
or 400, which would support itself by fishing in the summer and
winter, as well as hunting game in the winter. He said most of
important of all is the family bond. He explained, "When we gather
our fish, we share it with others. We know that we have enough
until the next season." He indicated that wouldn't be possible
without the subsistence activity. They share fish from the rivers
and food from the land with others. In contrast, someone working
in a cash economy or on welfare doesn't share with others in need.
"Because subsistence to us is a bond, a family bond," he said.
"And without it, it would not be a community."
MR. NICK said in the interests of the Alaska Natives, they talk
about unity. He said the state Department of Fish and Game has
done a good job in regulating the resource use. He said, "Come
October 1, if we lose state control, I don't think we'll be able to
do a lot of things that we do today, like emergency openings." He
encouraged the legislature to champion the cause of Alaska Natives
and the wishes of those who use the resources the most.
Number 505
CO-CHAIRMAN HUDSON said he shared the concern over the loss of
management. "I'm convinced there will be subsistence," he added.
"And those who truly need it, and for all the good reasons that
have been stated here this evening, ... it will continue in one
form or another. But I always worry a little bit when we trust the
management of the resources to those who, in many cases, come to
Alaska as a part of their federal job for the last three years to
garner a high salary in order to retire early-on, ... and whose
advocacy and whose loyalty, in the most part, relates to their
service or to their agency, whereas any agent of Alaska's loyalty
should be with Alaskans ...."
Number 534
JOHN PHILLIP testified via teleconference from Kongiganak. He
spoke at length in Yup'ik. [The beginning of the translation,
relating to the subsistence lifestyle, was cut off because of the
tape change.]
TAPE 97-59, SIDE A
Number 001
Interpreter Trim Nick stated [begins mid-speech]:
"... were his, since he had traditionally occupied and used that
area. And ... his grandfather had stated that they would be his as
he grew up, and for his grandchildren ... when their time came.
And his grandfather had also ... told him to pass on this knowledge
to his children. This freedom to hunt on the rivers, on the
Kongiganak River, because his grandfather is the founder of that
village, in the coastal area, in the bay surrounding their village,
the tributaries, he was told that these lands and waterways, these
rivers, were open for these people to harvest for food.
"He said there is no end to subsistence in our lifestyle, whether
it be summer or winter. It is an ongoing event. And he also
described the ... hardships involving ... hunting and fishing,
especially in the traditional sense. Those in winter that sought
food in times of shortage many times suffered frostbite in the
face. A lot of times, they were ugly and unsightly to look at
because their faces were frostbitten, their hands, their feet. ...
But regardless of these, they were relentless in their ... efforts
to provide food for the families in their community.
"He stated that we follow these resources because fish and game is
not stationary; they move around. And since they are migratory, we
should have open access to where they are in our state, regardless
of whether they are within the vicinity of the village or
elsewhere. He stated that the women, the Yup'ik women, in the
traditional sense are no different from the men in this subsistence
lifestyle. They collect the ... wild grains and berries and
plants. Regardless of fatigue, whether they were wet, they battled
the elements to gather ... these fruits.
"In regards to subsistence, Mr. Phillip stated that Alaska, our
state, for us, the Native people, is like a bowl of food, no matter
where you are or where you're from. And into the moose hunting, as
we are now in the moose hunting season, he described the efforts
that the men of our villages ... are undertaking with these week-
long trips up the rivers in search of the moose, whether they run
out of food ... in the effort, because they are hunting for the
family, for the community. ... With shortages in the winter months
..., that is ... the activity that is occurring right now.
"He also mentioned food. The subsistence lifestyle ... is not only
a food source but a source of kinship, of family and community.
And for ... those of us, ... it's a lifestyle for us. It's a
value, a Yup'ik value to share, and, he mentioned, especially for
those in the community that cannot hunt or fish for themselves,
those are some of the people that this lifestyle provides for.
"In closing, he stated that this west coast part of the state is
especially an area where ... this lifestyle is predominant, from
our area to the north (indisc.) to Bristol Bay. He is grateful for
... the legislators and the lawmakers that have been working on
this issue. And he, in closing, is grateful for ... the clause in
... ANILCA that, as it is written now and as it is imposed, because
it has language that ... protects subsistence in ... whatever way
it does, as he understands it. ..."
Number 070
GREGORY ANELON testified via teleconference from Newhalen. [Some
of his testimony was indiscernible on tape due to poor sound
quality.] He fishes in Bristol Bay and is also a subsistence
harvester. He suggested the state has a "lack of spirit" to
oversee subsistence activity in the (Indisc.) region. He said the
Kvichavak River, historically the mother lode for the Bristol Bay
fishing industry, has been "going down." In the past two years,
the run in the (Indisc.) area has been down, influencing
subsistence activities.
MR. ANELON reported that two or three years before, the Anchorage
newspaper carried an article about Nondalton and the Lake Clark
area, relating to how people had to go below their village to
harvest fish needed for winter. "And then yet, the State of Alaska
says that ... they met their goals," he said. "They were always
looking at the harvest ability, rather than escapement goals. And
toward the end, the subsistence activity has also been down."
MR. ANELON explained that after commercial fishing, he participates
in subsistence activities. The money from fishing enables him to
fully participate in subsistence, which requires a lot of money and
is a different economy all its own. He believes putting a
definition on people who are subsistence users is ludicrous. He
explained that it requires boats, which are costly, as well as
gasoline. If people didn't work to provide those boats, the
communities would not benefit. "We need the fish, and we need the
economy," he stated. "I hope that the legislature can find another
means of defining the people in rural Alaska. It seems like we're
always the last to -- we're at the bottom of the draw already with
(indisc.) uses."
MR. ANELON continued, "And to have a rural preference will enable
us to participate in that, to provide food for our families at a
time when there is ... a little resource available. We're only an
hour's flight from Anchorage. And right now, with the
moose/caribou season open, there's planes flying all over the place
here, over here and Lake Iliamna. And we'd just like to have a
preference (indisc.) that the resources are low, that we do not
(indisc.) under us the food that we gather around here. Most of
the economy in rural Alaska can also help the economy in the state
of Alaska." He said he hoped the legislature can have foresight
and notice that "the subsistence activity in rural Alaska ... has
a base in the economy." He thanked the committee for the
opportunity to participate.
Number 125
CO-CHAIRMAN HUDSON thanked Mr. Anelon and advised listeners that
the hearing portion was concluded; everyone who had indicated a
desire to testify had done so. He said the committee recognized
that every seat in the building would likely have been filled
except that many people were subsistence hunting for moose and
caribou. He expressed respect and appreciation for that. He
suggested that perhaps by having a smaller crowd, there may have
been higher-quality input because more lengthy testimony was
possible. "And we're pleased that we were able to afford that
opportunity," he said.
CO-CHAIRMAN HUDSON thanked committee members, Senator Hoffman and
Representative Ivan, noting that Representative Ivan has been a
powerful advocate on behalf of the people from that region "at the
caucus and the assemblies that I sit in, in all cases representing
your best interest." He stated, "We're in a democratic process
here in Alaska. It's provided to some extent; we always look high
to the constitution as sort of the solid rock on which our
statehood and our common existence is built .... Hearings like
this provide those of us who have to listen to the debate on both
sides of the issue an opportunity to be more aware. To be able to
look you in the face, to listen to your voice, to see the sincerity
that you show and reflect is very, very important."
CO-CHAIRMAN HUDSON continued, "As I said earlier, we intend to take
the written and the oral testimony presented here today, and try to
summarize it in a realistic form and make the presentation to the
Speaker of the House, the President of the Senate, and the members
of the legislature, the House and the Senate, because the Senate,
even though they couldn't be here, have indicated that ... they
wanted ... this hearing to go forward. So, at this time, the
committee will adjourn its business, and we will reconvene on
Friday, the 12th, in Ketchikan, for our Southeast regional
subsistence hearing. We'll be doing essentially the same thing
down there." Co-Chairman Hudson asked whether there were closing
comments.
Number 168
REPRESENTATIVE NICHOLIA thanked Speaker of the House Gail Phillips
and Co-Chairman Hudson for taking the initiative for this hearing
on subsistence. She said the testimony was valuable and of good
quality, eloquently spoken from the heart and mostly from
experience; in some cases, that experience was from 60 or more
years. She stated that this is a crucial issue, and she assured
listeners that their comments would be taken seriously,
acknowledging the importance of subsistence for the lifestyle that
the area's residents lead. She said she looked forward to hearing
from people, including those who hadn't testified, whether it was
in writing or through another teleconference.
CO-CHAIRMAN HUDSON thanked Nelson Davies for a marvelous job in
putting together this patchwork for communications, as well as for
showing the committee around Bethel, which he believes was
invaluable in visiting the community. He thanked Amy Daugherty for
providing the committee with the required administrative support.
He also thanked the translators and praised them for their work,
indicating he'd never worked with anyone better, even in travels in
the Soviet Far East. He also thanked Ted Popely and Ron Somerville
for attending, and thanked those people who had allowed use of the
great facility. He commented on how much the committee had enjoyed
their stay in Bethel. (There was a round of applause.)
Number 217
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN commented that with such a contentious and
potentially inflammatory subject, he was extremely impressed with
the decorum of those who'd testified on this sensitive issue. He
stated, "In addition to the information that you gave us, your
attitude was so refreshing that I think every member of the
committee certainly appreciates the fact that you said what you had
to say, but you said it in such a gentlemanly and ladylike way that
we are very, very impressed. Thank you."
Number 230
REPRESENTATIVE DYSON said he too was impressed, in a way he
couldn't describe, with the importance of these issues on a
spiritual and cultural level. He noted that many folks have not
been happy with the service that the state has provided and the
relationship in the past. He said, "And I'm disappointed with that
and I'm sorry for that. We can't change the past, and we all want
to work towards the future." He also noted that several people had
expressed displeasure that the legislators hadn't participated in
the RurAL CAP discussions the previous spring in Juneau and the AFN
conference in Anchorage. He stated, "And most of us did not get
the invitations to go there. And whoever is inviting legislators
to participate in the future, I'd really encourage you to send the
invitations to everyone, because sometimes if you just send it to
our leaders, it doesn't get to everyone. I, for one, would have
been delighted to be there and been glad to have been invited. And
thank you for the hospitality."
REPRESENTATIVE JOULE stated, "All day long, we've heard about the
concept of sharing. And to give you a little bit of ... where that
goes, when a young person catches his first game, her first, and
they go out and give it to people who are no longer able to go out,
when our children were going to this rite of passage that somebody
referred to, I would watch the exchange that would occur between
the elders and my children. And what I observed, it took a few
years for it to sink in. But what I ended up observing was that
not only did you give them food to eat, but in the conversation, it
also allowed them - because they were no longer able to go out -
the ability to revisit old stomping grounds. And through their
mind's eye, they went through that hunt again. And again the
spirit of that animal and that hunt was passed on from the young
person, who thanked the spirit of that animal and the Creator for
that gift, to the elder, who not only thanked the child but also,
again, that animal and the Creator for the gift of sharing, so that
it would go on. ... And I just wanted to make sure that those
connections were there, because sometimes, you know, we can take
trips and never leave the barn. ... There's a couple of you that
are elders that sat here all day today. I'm glad you were here.
... It was really good. And I look forward to the hearings as they
continue. Thank you."
Number 289
REPRESENTATIVE WILLIAMS stated, "I would like to thank you all for
your hospitality. I've learned a lot today. My being a Tlingit,
I understand how you feel. I feel it here also, that is,
subsistence is a lifestyle. I know that. I feel it every day. ...
This time of the year, we're taking care of fish, smoking fish,
putting what we call stink heads, put it down at half-tide, and we
go down and have a party ... on the beach, eat our ... fish heads.
Delicious, believe me. I sit there and wash it in the saltwater
and eat it right there on the beach, or go up in the smokehouse and
bake it."
REPRESENTATIVE WILLIAMS continued, "In the wintertime, I feel a
little bit more also that the deer hunting and the other kind of
living that goes on. Springtime, I look to the fish eggs, herring
eggs and king salmon that's coming up. So, I feel the subsistence.
I feel the lifestyle. I would hope, and ... like I mentioned
before, I think a lot of our people that are very concerned about
the constitution and don't want to change the constitution, I don't
believe that ... they feel that they want to take away your
subsistence lifestyle. I don't believe that's their way of
thinking. I think they believe in the constitution. And I would
hope that maybe when ANCSA was passed, that we can all talk about
how subsistence was negotiated in ANCSA, kind of how the
subsistence lifestyle was given to us in that conference report,
and they said that the Secretary and the State of Alaska will take
care of the subsistence needs of the Alaska Natives. I hope that
maybe someone listening can tell me where I'm wrong on that,
because that's where I'm coming from."
REPRESENTATIVE WILLIAMS continued, "We negotiated that ANCSA.
There's a lot of people here that talked about ANCSA and saying
that they didn't like it. There's a lot of our people in the
Alaska Native community that did not like ANCSA as it was passed,
for a lot of different reasons. There's a lot of things there, but
it was a negotiated settlement. And I would hope that our experts
over there against the wall can help us understand, help this body
here understand, the conference report. Everybody says ... that
subsistence started in ANILCA. It did not start there. It started
in ANCSA. I would hope that we would continue talking that way.
I heard just a little bit of it this afternoon. But I would hope
that the people here in this area would talk about the conference
report in ANCSA and how it was negotiated." Representative
Williams concluded with the Tlingit thank-you, "gunalcheesh,"
adding that his parents, who'd spoken only Tlingit, were punished
for that when they went to school. They hadn't wanted him to have
the same experience, and he can speak the language very little.
Number 362
SENATOR HOFFMAN stated, "On behalf of all the people from Bethel
and the Yukon-Kuskokwim delta, I would like to thank you, as the
chairman of ... the Resources Committee, for extending not only the
time but allowing many members to go well beyond the original two
minutes that they were going to have to present. And I think that,
as a result, as you said, ... the meaning of what needed to be
translated here was done excellently. I would also like to thank
Mary Pete, ... the director of the subsistence division; she handed
some salmon strips to Reggie Joule, and he cut them up and all of
us really enjoyed that snack earlier on this evening. But, you
know, throughout my travels, once there was an elder that when we
were talking about subsistence, he said that in order for us to
benefit from subsistence, we need to take care of the land, because
the land is what the animals and the birds, the berries and
everything come from. ... The important point that he made to me
was that he said we did not inherit this land from our elders. We
are simply borrowing this land from our children and our children's
children. With that, I hope we are able to resolve the subsistence
dilemma and make some headway. Thank you."
Number 386
An unidentified man offered the last word. He suggested if
legislators were going to make a law for Alaska, they should notify
the people before it happens.
ADJOURNMENT
Number 407
CO-CHAIRMAN HUDSON adjourned the House Resources Standing Committee
meeting at 8:44 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|