Legislature(1997 - 1998)
09/12/1997 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 12, 1997
9:15 a.m.
Ketchikan, Alaska
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Bill Hudson, Co-Chairman
Representative Beverly Masek, Vice Chair (via teleconference)
Representative Fred Dyson
Representative Joe Green
Representative William K. ("Bill") Williams
Representative Irene Nicholia
Representative Reggie Joule (via teleconference)
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Scott Ogan, Co-Chairman
Representative Ramona Barnes
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
Public Subsistence Hearing
(* First public hearing)
PREVIOUS ACTION
See House Resources Committee minutes dated September 10, 1997.
WITNESS REGISTER
JOE AMBROSE, Legislative Assistant
to Senator Robin Taylor
Alaska State Legislature
Capitol Building, Room 30
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Telephone: (907) 465-4906
POSITION STATEMENT: Commented on behalf of Senator Taylor.
ROBERT BOSWORTH, Deputy Commissioner
Office of the Commissioner
Department of Fish and Game
P.O. Box 25526
Juneau, Alaska 99802-5526
Telephone: (907) 465-6140
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified regarding subsistence.
WILLIAM "BILL" C. THOMAS, SR., Member
Southeast Native Subsistence Commission
Box 5196
Ketchikan, Alaska 99901
Telephone: (907) 225-4833
POSITION STATEMENT: Asked a question regarding subsistence.
JOHN BORBRIDGE
Central Council of the Tlingit
and Haida Indian Tribes of Alaska;
and Sealaska Corporation
603 West Tenth Street
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Telephone: (907) 586-2132
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified regarding subsistence.
ROBERT WILLARD, JR.
Grand Camp of the Alaska Native
Brotherhood; and Southeast
Native Subsistence Commission
236 Third Street
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Telephone: (907) 463-3451
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified regarding subsistence.
DONALD WESTLUND
P.O. Box 7883
Ketchikan, Alaska 99901
Telephone: (907) 225-9319
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified regarding subsistence.
MELVIN J. CHARLES
Route 2, Box 7
Ketchikan, Alaska 99901
Telephone: (907) 247-2059
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified regarding subsistence.
ROYCE RENNIGER, Commercial Fisherman
P.O. Box 702
Ward Cove, Alaska 99928
Telephone: (907) 247-2606
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified regarding subsistence.
GEORGE JAMES, JR.
Kuiu Thhinggit Nation
14055 First Avenue, N.W.
Seattle, Washington 98177
Facsimile Telephone: (206) 362-7725
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified regarding subsistence.
BOB WEINSTEIN
P.O. Box 7801
Ketchikan Alaska 99901
Telephone: (907) 247-8103
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified regarding subsistence.
JOE DEMMERT, JR.
2724 Fourth Avenue
Ketchikan, Alaska 99901
Telephone: (907) 225-5376
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified regarding subsistence.
DICK COOSE
P.O. Box 9533
Ketchikan, Alaska 99901
Telephone: (907) 247-9533
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified regarding subsistence.
K. A. SWIGER
Ketchikan Sports and Wildlife Club
846 Brown Deer Road
Ketchikan, Alaska 99901
Telephone: (907) 225-1548
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified regarding subsistence.
ERIC MUENCH
P.O. Box 6811
Ketchikan, Alaska 99901
Telephone: (907) 225-5372
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified regarding subsistence.
GEORGE GARDNER, Member
Ketchikan Indian Corporation
Box 23407
Ketchikan, Alaska 99901
Telephone: (907) 247-9516
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified regarding subsistence.
LOREN CROXTON
Box 1410
Petersburg, Alaska 99833
Telephone: (907) 772-3622
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified regarding subsistence.
WALT SHERIDAN
P.O. Box 21781
Juneau, Alaska 99802
Telephone: (907) 789-4059
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified regarding subsistence.
HELEN DRURY
1011 Halibut Point Road
Sitka, Alaska 99835
Telephone: (907) 747-8019
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified regarding subsistence.
DONALD MacDONALD
P.O. Box 207
Pelican, Alaska
Telephone: (907) 735-2220
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified regarding subsistence.
PAT GARDNER
Box 1
Craig, Alaska 99921
Telephone: (907) 826-3288
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified regarding subsistence.
TOM SKEEK, JR.
Box 242
Kake, Alaska 99830
Telephone: (907) 785-4117
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified regarding subsistence.
MIKE A. JACKSON
Box 316
Kake, Alaska 99830
Telephone: (907) 785-6471
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified regarding subsistence.
SAMUEL JACKSON
Box 282
Kake, Alaska 99830
Telephone: (907) 785-3147
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified regarding subsistence.
JOSEPHINE PAUL
Box 206
Kake, Alaska 99830
Telephone: (907) 785-3161
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified regarding subsistence.
KATHY HAWK
Box 217
Kake, Alaska 99830
Telephone: (907) 785-3138
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified regarding subsistence.
DENNIS WATSON, Mayor
City of Craig
Box 725
Craig, Alaska 99921
Telephone: (907) 826-3438
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified regarding subsistence.
PATRICK MILLS
Box 301
Hoonah, Alaska 88729
Telephone: Not provided
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified regarding subsistence.
OWEN JAMES
Box 461
Hoonah, Alaska 99829
Telephone: (907) 945-3721
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified regarding subsistence.
GEORGE PAUL
Box 724
Sitka, Alaska 99835
Telephone: (907) 747-0673
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified regarding subsistence.
MATTHEW J. FRED, SR.
Head Cultural Leader of
Admiralty Island, Angoon
Box 94
Angoon, Alaska 99820
Telephone: (907) 788-3101
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified regarding subsistence.
BILL AUGER
Box 9335
Ketchikan, Alaska 99901
Telephone: (907) 225-2737
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified regarding subsistence.
TERESA GARLAND, Executive Director
Ketchikan Chamber of Commerce
P.O. Box 5957
Ketchikan, Alaska 99901
Telephone: (907) 225-3184
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified regarding subsistence.
ROBERTA SHIELDS
6525 Roosevelt Drive
Ketchikan, Alaska 99901
Telephone: (907) 225-6334
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified regarding subsistence.
EDWARD GAMBLE, SR.
Box 33
Angoon, Alaska 99820
Telephone: Not provided
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified regarding subsistence.
ALAN ZUBOFF
Box 84
Angoon, Alaska 99820
Telephone: Not provided
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified regarding subsistence.
MARLENE ZUBOFF, Executive Director
Angoon Community Association
Box 84
Angoon, Alaska 99820
Telephone: (907) 788-3411
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified regarding subsistence.
LEE PUTMAN
Ketchikan Sports and Wildlife Club
P.O. Box 5814
Ketchikan, Alaska 99901
Telephone: (907) 225-7694
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified regarding subsistence.
KAY ANDREW
P.O. Box 7211
Ketchikan, Alaska 99901
Telephone: (907) 225-2463
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified regarding subsistence.
BEN HASTINGS
Ketchikan Sports and Wildlife Club
P.O. Box 8432
Ketchikan, Alaska 99901
Telephone: (907) 225-5014
(907) 723-1651
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified regarding subsistence.
PATRICIA PHILLIPS
Box 33
Pelican, Alaska 99832
Telephone: (907) 735-2240
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified regarding subsistence.
JOHN PECKHAM, Board Member
Southeast Alaska Seiners Association
Box 8394
Ketchikan, Alaska 99901
Telephone: (907) 225-6047
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified regarding subsistence.
CHRIS JOHNSON, Gillnetter
P.O. Box 9304
Ketchikan, Alaska 99901
Telephone: (907) 225-3336
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified regarding subsistence.
ED MARKSHEFFEL
P.O. Box 9324
Ketchikan, Alaska 99901
Telephone: (907) 225-7666
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified regarding subsistence.
RICHARD JACKSON
P.O. Box 8634
Ketchikan, Alaska 99901
Telephone: (907) 225-0383
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified regarding subsistence.
JANICE JACKSON
P.O. Box 8634
Ketchikan, Alaska 99901
Telephone: (907) 225-0383
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified regarding subsistence.
LONNIE ANDERSON, Mayor
City of Kake
Box 500
Kake, Alaska 99830
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified regarding subsistence.
THOMAS SKEEK, JR.
Box 242
Kake, Alaska 99830
Telephone: (907) 785-4117
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified regarding subsistence.
KATHY HANSEN, Executive Director
United Southeast Alaska Gillnetters Association
5875 Glacier Highway, Lot 21
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Telephone: (907) 586-5860
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified regarding subsistence.
PETER AMUNDSON
918 Jackson
Ketchikan, Alaska 99901
Telephone: (907) 225-6036
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified regarding subsistence.
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 97-60, SIDE A
Number 001
CO-CHAIRMAN BILL HUDSON called the House Resources Standing
Committee meeting to order at 9:15 a.m. Members present were
Representatives Hudson, Dyson, Green, Williams, and Nicholia.
Representatives Joule and Masek were in attendance via
teleconference. Members absent were Representatives Ogan and
Barnes.
PUBLIC SUBSISTENCE HEARING
CO-CHAIRMAN HUDSON indicated the House Resources Committee held a
12-hour hearing on September 10, in Bethel, regarding subsistence.
The hearing was an excellent input session. He said, "We're trying
to glean, for the first time, I believe, through the legislative
process, the wishes and the concerns and the interest and the
recommendations of you, the folks of Alaska. I'll say it now,
because we may have to say it again, that we're not here to tell
you anything; we're here to simply listen to you. We will be using
as a guide the task force which was put together by the Governor
that includes the Speaker of the House and the President of the
Senate, seven members. They have come forward with a proposed
three-part solution to the subsistence problem, largely agitated by
the October 1 court-appointed date that we are confronted with."
CO-CHAIRMAN HUDSON noted he is the Co-Chairman of the House
Resources Committee along with Co-Chairman Scott Ogan, who was not
able to attend. He introduced Representative Green and announced
he is chairman of the House Judiciary Committee. The Judiciary
Committee will be a prime committee that must also hold hearings
before the legislature can take any legal action. If the
legislature is called into special session, or when they go into
regular session, any subsistence issue will also have to have
hearings in the Judiciary Committee and the Finance Committee. Co-
Chairman Hudson introduced Representative Dyson and Representative
Williams. He also introduced Joe Ambrose of Senator Taylor's
staff. He indicated Representative Irene Nicholia would be in
attendance soon.
CO-CHAIRMAN HUDSON announced that there will be additional hearings
regarding subsistence on September 24, in Fairbanks; September 25,
in Wasilla; September 26, in Kenai/Soldotna; and September 27, in
Anchorage. He then introduced Melinda Hofstad of his staff.
Number 134
REPRESENTATIVE JOE GREEN introduced himself and said, "I would be
representing the South Anchorage portion; so, obviously, my
constituency will be from an urban type of attitude, and I would be
less than honest if I didn't say that they collectively have a view
that may not be shared by everyone here. It certainly was a view
somewhat different than what we heard in Bethel. But what I would
like to stress, and was very well done in Bethel, is that even
though there may be differences of opinion within your audience
here, certainly there have been differences of opinion among the
members of the legislature."
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN indicated subsistence is a very sensitive
issue that sometimes goes beyond pure logic and certainly goes
beyond economics. He asked that everyone remember that the
committee wants to learn the logic and what the people feel. He
said they hope to come up with something that will ultimately be
the best for all of the people of the state of Alaska, and it may
not necessarily be what the federal government wants. He said, "As
you know, on many issues, we are not in sync with some of the
things the federal government says, but by the same token, I'm not
here to say that we won't be in sync with the federal government,
especially on this issue." He said the committee is here to
listen.
Number 193
REPRESENTATIVE FRED DYSON introduced himself as being from Eagle
River. He note he is also a Bristol Bay fisherman. He said he
thinks he understands a little bit about commercial fishing and
lifestyles that revolve around the water. Representative Dyson
said a lot of what he learns is hard for him to quantify as there
are a lot of subjective things.
Number 212
REPRESENTATIVE BILL WILLIAMS said he was at the Bethel hearing and
it was an experience. He said, "I think we heard what we expected
in Bethel. There wasn't much deviation from what their thoughts
were. I think we're going to hear both sides of the issue here,
whether we have a constitutional amendment or not. We certainly
didn't hear anything in Bethel saying that they wanted to not -- or
have the constitutional amendment. There was a couple, but a lot
of it was that they could care less about whether or not we went to
federal management or not. I would hope that you would tell us how
you feel about federal management or state management and why.
Like the other committee members have said is that we're here to
listen and get some good arguing points, on one side or the other,
on why we should not have or have the constitutional amendment.
And I would hope that you would talk on the Governor's proposal or
any proposal, or how you would like to see it done yourself with --
hasn't been presented throughout the state or any other arena. It
is a tough issue. One of the things that was brought to my
attention during my tenure here in the legislature is anytime you
start talking about a person's livelihood, money or subsistence,
you really get the attention and it's one of the most difficult
issues to talk about and try to handle. This is a difficult issue.
I believe that we can take care of the issue. I feel confident
that we will, even with all of the negative words out there in the
newspaper saying that we're not going to have a special session.
I would like to think we are going to have one and we will take
care of this so that the federal government does not come in and
manage our resources." He asked everyone in attendance that wishes
to discuss the issue with him to feel free to contact him.
Number 267
JOE AMBROSE, Legislative Assistant to Senator Robin Taylor, Alaska
State Legislature, said as a member of the Senate Resources
Committee, Senator Taylor will have ample opportunity to speak at
the four hearings beginning on September 24. He noted also that
Senator Taylor is the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee.
He said he would like to acknowledge the hard work of June Robbins,
Legislative Information Officer.
Number 280
CO-CHAIRMAN HUDSON noted the committee is also being assisted by
Pete Ecklund. He said the committee has also had support and
assistance by Ted Popely and Ron Somerville, who are in attendance
representing the Speaker of the House. Co-Chairman Hudson
indicated the committee member's files have copies of the task
force proposal along with other information. He continued, "We're
using the group of seven proposal because it is conclusive. It
includes the potential changes to ANILCA (Alaska National Interest
Lands Conservation Act), the issue concerning the constitution and
some proposals as would be required according to at least that
finding and that is not final. That is a, once again, it is a
talking point, but it gives us something to speak from." He said
Robert Bosworth, Deputy Commissioner, Department of Fish and Game,
would give a presentation of what is included in the proposal and
where it currently stands.
Number 314
ROBERT BOSWORTH, Deputy Commissioner, Office of the Commissioner
Department of Fish and Game, came before the committee. He said he
was privileged to serve as staff to the task force in which the
proposal was developed. Mr. Bosworth explained the proposal is a
package deal which has three parts to it that are linked together.
Mr. Bosworth said there were two primary goals that the task force
set for itself in developing the proposal. The first was to ensure
effective state authority over fish and game authority over fish
and game management on all lands and waters of Alaska. The second
goal was to recognize the paramount importance of the subsistence
way of life to Alaskans. Mr. Bosworth said it was acknowledged by
the task force that Alaskans may be reluctant to amend the
constitution without knowing what changes might be made in federal
law, ANILCA and also state fish and game statutes. There is
recognition that each one of those components was linked to the
other. The (indisc.) that the task force took is that the
effective date of the ANILCA amendments and the effective date of
the state statutory amendments will be the passage of the
constitutional amendment. He said the notion is that the voters
will know precisely what is in the ANILCA amendments and the state
statutory amendments when they vote on the constitutional
amendment. The proposal includes a (indisc.) Congressional
determination that the state, upon passage of the constitutional
amendment and implementation of the revised statutes, is in
compliance with ANILCA and they (indisc.). He noted the
constitutional amendment cannot be voted on until the November,
1998, general election.
MR. BOSWORTH referred to the constitutional amendment and said
under the proposal, the Alaska Constitution will be amended to
permit, but not to require, the Alaska legislature to grant a
subsistence priority to rural residents. At the same time, the
state statutes will be amended to create a rural priority. Those
statutes and the ANILCA amendments would become effective only if
the constitutional amendment is passed.
MR. BOSWORTH said the Alaska 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 that the state regains management. The Boards of
Fisheries and Game, acting jointly through regulation, will have
the power to change community classifications in the future as
communities change. Mr. Bosworth said state statutes will also be
amended to improve the proxy hunting and fishing provisions, to
provide for educational hunting and fishing permits, to clarify the
definitions of "rural of customary trade," to make clear that the
subsistence priority is a reasonable opportunity to take and is not
a guarantee of taking, and to refine the subsistence management
system including adding a state regional council system.
MR. BOSWORTH said the third part of the package relates to the
amendments to federal law, Title VIII of ANILCA. The amendments
fall roughly into four categories. The first category is one of
definitions. A lot of the definitions that would be put into state
law would need to be replicated in federal law. For example,
"rural and customary trade," "customary and traditional" and
"reasonable opportunity" are all important operative terms in state
law which would be embedded in ANILCA.
MR. BOSWORTH explained another category of ANILCA amendments
addresses court oversight. Section 807 would be amended to state
the standard of review for actions of the fish and game boards and
to require the federal courts to give board decisions the same
deference that would be given a federal agency decision. He said
adding these standards is not believed to be a change in federal
law, but the standards are not explicit in Title VIII. This is a
clarification purpose.
MR. BOSWORTH explained the third category of ANILCA amendments has
to do with state management. Title VIII will be amended to make it
clear that the state manages subsistence on lands and waters,
whether federal, state or private. This will be done in three
ways. Section 814 will be amended so that the Secretary of the
Interior cannot make or enforce subsistence regulations while the
state is managing.
MR. BOSWORTH explained that Section 806, which presently requires
annual reporting on subsistence by the Secretary, will be repealed.
He noted that nothing would prohibit the Secretary from reporting
on subsistence activities.
MR. BOSWORTH said the third part of the aspect of the amendments is
the definition of "federal public lands." It will be clarified to
ensure that it excludes all private and state lands. The
collective purpose of these amendments is to make it clear that the
Secretary has no management authority while the state is managing
in compliance with ANILCA.
MR. BOSWORTH said the fourth category of ANILCA amendments has to
do with the Congressional seal of approval, noncompliance, and
neutrality on the Indian country issue. He said Section 805 will
be amended to first declare the state is in compliance with Section
805(d) when it passes the constitutional amendment and statutory
amendments and, secondly, to make future noncompliance a
determination by the courts. So, anytime that the state may be
accused of falling out of compliance with ANILCA, that
determination would be made by the court system. Mr. Bosworth said
he would be happy to answer any questions.
Number 415
WILLIAM "BILL" C. THOMAS, SR., Member, Southeast Native Subsistence
Commission, came before the committee. He indicated he is from
Ketchikan. Mr. Thomas referred to Mr. Bosworth making reference to
voting on the amendment by saying that if the amendment is adopted
by the voters of the state, it would allow but not require the
legislature to do certain things. He said he wonders what the
contingency offers if the vote doesn't support the change / fails
to change. He asked what would then happen.
MR. BOSWORTH said as he understands the question, it is what
happens if the voters did not approve a constitutional amendment.
He said that was discussed by the task force. If the
constitutional amendment does not pass, then neither the ANILCA
amendments nor the state statutory amendments would come into
effect.
Number 444
JOHN BORBRIDGE came before the committee to present his testimony.
He read the following statement into the record:
"My name is John Borbridge, and I'm appearing before you today on
behalf of the delegates from the Central Council of the Tlingit and
Haida Indian Tribes of Alaska and Sealaska Corporation to the
Southeast Native Subsistence Summit. The Southeast Summit met in
Juneau, Alaska, on July 17 and 18, to consider various proposals to
amend state and federal laws relating to their subsistence
lifestyle which is of paramount importance to our region's people.
"A broad spectrum of Southeast Native leaders attended our regional
summit. Besides the delegates from the Central Council and
Sealaska Corporation, representatives from the Southeast Natives
Subsistence Commission, the Alaska Native Brotherhood (ANB), Alaska
Native Sisterhood (ANS) Grand Camps, the Southeast Indian
Reorganization IRA (Indian Reorganization Act) councils and Tlingit
and Haida Community Councils carefully considered proposed changes
to the Alaska Constitution, as well as to federal and state laws
and regulations governing the taking of fish and game for
subsistence purposes.
"Represented at the summit, the Central Council, a federally
recognized tribe with a membership of slightly more than 23,000
enrolled members. Also Sealaska Corporation, the regional
corporation under ANCSA (Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act), with
approximately 15,800 shareholders and ownership of 340,000 acres of
surfaces estate and about 600,000 acres of subsurface estate. The
corporation plays a vigorous role in preserving our Native heritage
and our human resources through its scholarship program, the
Sealaska Heritage Foundation, and the management and care of
cultural and historic sites throughout our region.
"The Southeast Native Subsistence Summit, like other similar
subsistence summits held across Alaska, was a response to a call by
three co-sponsoring organizations, the Alaska Federation of
Natives, the Alaska Inter-Tribal Council and Rural Alaska Community
Action Program. And the intention was that each of the regional
councils should develop subsistence positions to be submitted at a
later meeting which was held in August 26, 27 and 28, in Anchorage,
and these recommendations would be for the development of
subsistence regional positions. And at our regional summit, the
delegates unanimously to adopt the following positions, each of
which was rooted in Alaska Natives' long and proven history of
nonwasteful fish and game management, as well as our use of
traditional knowledge and ways of protecting food resources.
"First, ANILCA Amendments. The delegates unanimously opposed any
changes to ANILCA. Indeed, the summit twice addressed this issue,
separately resolving that Southeast Alaska Natives will `in no
instance agree to a resolution of the subsistence impasse that
diminishes the existing protections afforded Natives under Title
VIII of ANILCA.' This statement of principle was intended to
clarify that Southeast Alaska Natives are seeking a `no net loss'
of the protections currently afforded under ANILCA. It was
intended to cover not only legislative actions, but any judicial
intervention as well, including the Venetie and Katie John cases.
"With respect to Alaska Native subsistence rights, the focal point
of ANILCA is Title VIII. And in Title VIII, Congress provided that
`subsistence uses' of fish and wildlife on the `public lands' are
to be accorded a priority over all other uses. This means that
`subsistence uses' of a particular fish stock or game population
must be completely satisfied before commercial and sport uses of
such a stock or a population will be permitted. And if, at any
time, the fish or wildlife population is insufficient to satisfy
all `subsistence uses,' the following criteria are to be applied in
allocating among `subsistence users': (1) Customary and direct
dependence upon the population as the mainstay of livelihood; (2)
local residency; and (3) the availability of alternative resources.
"Several provisions in the Governor's task force proposal would
amend ANILCA, contrary to the regional summit's position. The
potential ANILCA amendments in that proposal fall generally into
four categories: (1) Amendments to definitions; (2) court
oversight; (3) state management; and (4) Congressional seal of
approval, noncompliance and neutrality on Indian country. Taking
these aspects in turn:
"Definitions. The Governor's proposal offers a number of
definitions to terms used in ANILCA that taken together raise the
fear that the rights granted by Title VIII may be whittled away
piecemeal. For example, `customary trade' is defined in a way that
does not appear to encompass the full range of traditional family
and community network trade. A third key definition is that
proposed for the phrase `customary and traditional.' The proposal
also introduces the concept of providing Alaska Natives only a
`reasonable opportunity' to take subsistence resources, rather than
according a clear priority, as ANILCA requires.
"Our concern that these and other `definitions' could be used to
diminish our existing rights under Title VIII was a prime
motivating factor in our unanimously held view that ANILCA simply
should not be amended at all.
"ANILCA's court oversight provisions. Under the Governor's plan,
ANILCA, Section 807, will be amended to provide that the standard
of review for state agency actions would be the deferential
`arbitrary, capricious, or abuse of discretion' standard, and the
federal courts would be required to give state agency decisions the
same deference that would be given federal agencies. Our concern
here is the state of Alaska does not have any special expertise in
protecting Native rights that would command such deference. In our
view, the purpose of Title VIII, that is the creation of an
effective subsistence priority, must remain the guiding principle
behind any judicial review of the state's actions.
"The role of state management. The Governor's proposal calls for
ANILCA's Title VIII to be amended to make it clear that: (1) The
state is to manage subsistence on all lands and waters, whether
federal, state, or private; and (2) the Secretary of the Department
of the Interior has no management authority while the state is
managing in compliance with ANILCA. Furthermore, ANILCA, Section
814, is to be amended by adding an additional sentence which
prohibits the Secretary from making or enforcing subsistence
regulations during any time that the state is in compliance with
ANILCA, Title 805(d). ANILCA, Section 806, requiring annual
reporting on subsistence by the Secretary, will be repealed, but
nothing will prohibit the Secretary from reporting on subsistence
activities. Finally, the definition of federal `public lands' will
be clarified to ensure it excludes all private and state lands.
Taken as a whole, these amendments seem calculated to minimize the
future federal role in protecting Native subsistence rights.
"Congressional seal of approval, noncompliance, and neutrality on
Indian country. Under the Governor's proposal, ANILCA, Section
806, concerning federal monitoring would be repealed. The newly
proposed ANILCA, Section 806, would provide that Section 805 will
be amended to: (1) Declare the state is in compliance with Section
805(d) when the Alaskan voters pass the constitutional amendment
and the state statutory amendments; and (2) make future
noncompliance a court determination. The repeal of ANILCA, Section
806, would additionally require conforming changes in Section 813.
"It has yet to be shown to our delegates how these provisions would
give us protections equivalent to those currently contained in
ANILCA. As with all of the Governor's proposed statutory
amendments, until equivalent protection can be shown, we must
continue to view those proposals with concern.
"Native subsistence rights and related Indian country issues.
Aside from its support for ANILCA, our regional summit also took
action with respect to relative Native subsistence rights and
Indian country issues, including the following: Support for an
Alaska Native hunting and fishing subsistence priority; opposition
to any income based limitation on entitlement to the subsistence
priority; support for the repeal of Section 4(b) of ANCSA, which
extinguished claims for aboriginal hunting or fishing rights;
support for the enactment of the Alaska Native Hunting and Fishing
Restoration Act; support for sending a letter to Secretary Babbit
and Attorney General Reno requesting that the United States support
Venetie in the United States Supreme Court by filing an amicus
brief on Venetie's behalf; agreement to join in the filing of an
amicus brief that is being prepared on behalf of Alaska tribes,
corporations and other organizations in support of Venetie; and
finally in this section encouragement of all Southeast Alaska
tribes organizations to support the Native American Rights fund
financially in its efforts before the Supreme Court in the Venetie
case. With respect to these actions, first, the delegates
indicated their support for an Alaska Native hunting and fishing
subsistence priority. Such an Alaska Native priority is not
currently contained in ANILCA. While Title VIII of ANILCA
addresses the issues of subsistence management and use, it contains
a preference for subsistence uses by `rural Alaska residents.' In
any settlement of the subsistence controversy, the delegates
opposed any effort to restrict the subsistence priority to Alaska
Natives who are currently embraced within ANILCA's reference to
`rural Alaska residents.'
"It must be stressed, in this respect, that a family or community
that shares a customary trade in subsistence resources will
transcend rural/urban boundaries. An artificial boundary line that
splits that family apart is arbitrary and it is destructive of
Native culture.
"For similar reasons, the delegates opposed any restriction based
on individual income. To consider that is not the proper province
of state and federal officials to pick and choose which Alaska
Natives may learn and practice their traditional lifestyle. This
is a decision that Alaska Natives must and are entitled to make for
themselves.
"With respect to repealing Section 4(b) of ANCSA, that provision
purported to extinguish all claims of aboriginal title to land and
`any aboriginal hunting or fishing rights' that may have existed in
1971. Congress purported to extinguish such rights despite
vigorous Native opposition and our delegates urged Congress to
repeal this attempted extinguishment of rights as a matter of law.
"The summit delegates, by their passage of this portion of the
resolution, did not intend to effect any other provision of ANCSA,
including the land or monetary transfers contained in ANCSA.
"In the same vein, the delegates urged the enactment of the Alaska
Native Hunting and Fishing Restoration Act to restore Alaska Native
hunting and fishing rights.
"Fish and game management proposals. The delegates also endorsed
the principles and actions that should be taken to provide sound
management of fish and game resources. Those principles call for
appropriate management actions to ensure the following: A
sustained yield of fisheries and wildlife population; the
protection of subsistence harvests in order to provide the maximum
opportunity to meet the nutritional needs of Alaska Natives; the
protection of subsistence harvests to provide a maximum opportunity
to sustain the traditional and customary lifestyle of Alaska
Natives; the protection of subsistence distribution systems in
which resources are shared according to traditional and customary
patterns, including the sales for cash within family and community
networks; and the protection of habitat and the environment on
which fish, game and flora depend.
"I would note that there is a new addition to these management
principles which highlights the Southeast Alaska Natives' beliefs
that the protection of habitat and the environment is crucial to
the overall protection of our fish and game resources.
"Co-Management. Next, the delegates agreed to work to develop co-
management requirements and guidelines for federal and state
management of fish and game, governed by the following principles:
Any proposals by representatives of the Alaska Native Community for
changes in subsistence management shall include a provision for co-
management by tribes and Alaska Native organizations as equal
partners with other governmental entities; a Southeast Alaska
Technical Conference to explore and define co-management should be
convened and led by Southeast Alaska tribes and organizations. And
again, I am presenting to you the actions of the Southeast Regional
Summit. Each Alaska Native community should define co-management
parameters itself within its traditional usage area, and each
community should activate Tribal members, especially Elders and
youth, to the opportunities of co-management.
"Together these principles represent a new and significant concept
in fish and wildlife management. Title VIII of ANILCA authorizes
the Secretary of the Interior to enter into cooperative agreements
with other federal agencies, the state, Native corporations and
others `to effectuate the purposes and policies of Title VIII.'
The concept endorsed by the summit delegates was to strengthen the
statutory requirements so that co-management will be required in
the future. The foresight and thoughtfulness of the delegates is
clear in the additional requirement that a technical conference be
held so that all Southeast Alaska Natives can have a better
understanding of the issues involved.
"The Marine Mammal Protection Act..."
TAPE 97-60, SIDE B
NOTE: The following was not recorded on tape, but was taken from
Mr. Borbridge's written statement which he read: "...is an example
of a federal statute that provides for a degree of co-management.
In this regard, the Alaska Eskimo Whaling Commission's management,
regulation and administration..."
Number 001
MR. BORBRIDGE continued reading his statement into the record:
"...of the Bowhead Whale and its subsistence hunts provide an
example of just how successfully the principles of co-management
can work.
"The delegates of the Statewide Native Subsistence Summit direct
that the leadership of the Alaska Federation of Natives, the Alaska
Inter-Tribal Council and the RurAL Community Action Program should
continue the work of the Statewide Native Subsistence Summit and
`to work with Governor Knowles, the members of the Governor's task
force, the members of the Alaska Congressional delegation and other
interested parties to develop a resolution to the subsistence
impasse consistent with the guiding principles adopted by the
delegates to the Statewide Native Subsistence Summit.' Future
discussions would be guided by these fundamental principles -- And
this, Mr. Chairman, will conclude my testimony: (1) Future
participation and consent of the Alaska Native community, including
hearings in villages in each region. And I'm pleased, Mr. Chairman
that you already have this underway and have been engaged in this
process. (2) A subsistence priority based on Alaska Native
community, religious/spiritual, nutritional, medicinal and cultural
practices rather than an individualized or a needs-based system;
(3) only amendments which enhance subsistence rights and maintain
federal oversight at least to its current level; (4) co-management
of fish and wildlife resources, including state, federal and tribal
co-equal involvement; (5) full recognition of customary and
traditional uses, including religious/spiritual and ceremonial; (6)
effective comprehensive reform of state management system; (7)
recognition that subsistence is a basic human right.
"The regional and statewide summits, then, should be viewed as
beginnings, rather than as the culmination of a debate. Your
committee's interest in holding this hearing signals a willingness
to search for common ground among us, and for that delegates for
whom I testify today I can assure you that they are sincerely
appreciative. Thank you for the thought that I know you will give
the feelings that were expressed at our regional summit."
Number 057
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN thanked Mr. Borbridge for a copy of his
statement. He said, "Knowing that in any compromise, any agreement
among people with differences of attitudes -- I am going you ask
you two questions, and you may or may not want to answer them.
First question: Do you feel that with litany of conditions that
there is any chance for some movement there? And B: If there
would be, do you feel that is any priority among the various things
that are listed, that the Native community would feel these however
many are absolutely, are non -- you can't change those and there
may be some movement in other areas -- an all or nothing?"
MR. BORBRIDGE said he thought Representative Green was asking, "Is
there anything in prospects in our continuing in for ending up with
something?" He stated that he feels very confident that the thrust
of the thinking and the feeling of the Subsistence Summit was,
first of all, we should carve out a set of principles and seek to
determine on which principles the various regions could find
agreement and where did the consensus exist. He said if they were
going to engage in any conversations with the task force and other
people, they would need to say, generally speaking, "Here are the
principles we all agree to and here are some where there are some
differences."
MR. BORBRIDGE said given the attendance of over 900 people during
the first day of the Subsistence Summit, they wanted to send a
clear message that they feel very strongly about this. They were
willing to leave subsistence work undone. He said they were also
desirous of carving out common ground that existed them. This they
have done largely. Mr. Borbridge informed the committee that he
firmly believes, based on conversions and what he has heard from
other regions, that yes, they do want to continue the
conversations. He said this is not a "take it or leave it
situation" at all. He did note that he doesn't have the authority
to give the committee the priorities, as the feelings that were
expressed seemed to encompass the whole range of what was
presented. The Native people in the regions, through action taken
at the statewide and regional summits, made it clear that they do
want to contribute to efforts to solve the impasse.
Number 121
REPRESENTATIVE WILLIAMS said to Mr. Bosworth, "Your Congressional
seal of approval, noncompliance and neutrality on Indian country,
it was my understanding that the state would be neutral on this and
what you're saying today is that it isn't." Representative
Williams said he was told by leadership that they weren't going to
take a stand one way or the other as far as Indian country.
Number 135
MR. BORBRIDGE indicated he could answer in part. He said the
position they have taken is that the work they have done on
subsistence has been basically neutral on the related Indian
country issue.
Number 147
MR. BOSWORTH said the operative wording which would be added to
Section 816 under the proposal is, "Any assertion that Indian
country or any other authority exists or does not exist within the
boundaries of the state or any assertion that the Alaska National
Interest Land Conservation Act is Indian law, no provision of this
Act asserts such."
CO-CHAIRMAN HUDSON said, "Neutrality."
Number 160
REPRESENTATIVE WILLIAMS said Mr. Borbridge's comments were,
"Congressional seal of approval, noncompliance and neutrality on
Indian country." He said under the Governor's proposal, ANILCA
Section 806, concerning federal monitoring would be repealed. He
continued, "If we go along with this ANILCA 806 amendments, that
the state would be taking a stand against Indian country and that
isn't what Mr. Bosworth said."
Number 160
MR. BORBRIDGE indicated that they are concerned with that
possibility. He said the initial thrust of the amendment to ANILCA
runs into the principal position taken by the Native delegates,
which is that of opposition to any amendments to ANILCA. He said
they were concerned with the possibility that could occur. Mr.
Borbridge explained that they are continuing to analyze and examine
the proposals brought forward by the task force. He noted that is
a concern that they have.
Number 192
REPRESENTATIVE IRENE NICHOLIA asked Mr. Borbridge whether he had
problems with the third section where it says, "Any assertion that
ANILCA is Indian law."
MR. BORBRIDGE indicated they have concerns with it and they aren't
at a point where they want to accept it as it is. He said they are
continuing to analyze and they do have concerns about it.
Number 213
ROBERT WILLARD, JR., came before the committee members. He said he
represents the Grand Camp of the Alaska Native Brotherhood and the
Southeast Native Subsistence Commission. He noted he is from
Angoon but resides in Juneau. He read the following statement into
the record:
"We are here primarily, though, on behalf of our children and our
grandchildren. The Southeast Native Subsistence Commission is
sanctioned by the four largest Native organizations in the
Southeast - the Central Council of the Tlingit and Haida Indian
Tribes of Alaska, the Alaska Native Brotherhood Grand Camp, the
Alaska Native Sisterhood Grand Camp and the Sealaska Corporation --
and is representative by 18 commissioners, each of whom is elected
by their respective Southeast communities.
"Mr. Chairman, Mr. Harold Martin, the president of the Subsistence
Commission, is unable to present and regrets that he could not be
here to testify as he had other commitments that he could not
decline.
"The ANB and the Subsistence Commission attended the statewide
subsistence summit held in Anchorage in August and agreed with the
decisions made by the various regions. I presented a copy of my
report on the summit as an attachment to this presentation.
"In the Southeast, you should know the subsistence users harvest
less than 1 percent of the wild renewable resources, in the
Southeast, in any given year. I would like to speak especially to
the issue of linking subsistence priorities to individual or
community circumstances. The Alaska Native Brotherhood and the
Subsistence Commission are opposed to income levels as being a
criteria for subsistence opportunity. The Alaska Native
Brotherhood also opposes a community's economic circumstance as a
reason to evaluate the communities' eligibility for subsistence
opportunity.
"Any such limitation would be contrary to the spirit of Title VIII
of ANILCA, in that it would deny our Alaska Natives the freedom to
preserve their rich heritage and their traditional lifestyle when
some arbitrary income limit was reached. The Congressional leaders
who enacted ANILCA in 1980 understood this, and in this regard, may
I quote the remarks from Congressman Morris Udall in the
Congressional record of November 12, 1980, and I quote:
`The policy also requires that regulatory systems which employ
income requirements not be imposed upon rural residents. Income
requirements are, by their very nature, capricious classifications
in rural Alaska, and consequently can be invidiously destructive to
Alaska Native culture. Such a system would key eligibility on
criteria which embody the seeds of destruction of Native culture
sown in the guise of regulation.
`It is the intent of this legislation, ANILCA, to protect the
Alaska Native subsistence way of life for as long as the Alaska
Native people themselves choose to participate in that way of life,
and to leave for the Alaska Native people themselves, rather than
to federal and state resource mangers, the choice as to the
direction and pace, if any, of the evolution of the subsistence way
of life and of Alaska Native culture.'
"A system that tells Alaska Natives that, `no, you may no longer
practice your traditional culture, because in our judgement you
make too much money,' is wrong. Congress knew it was wrong in
1980, and it remains wrong today.
"I should say that I've included the Congressional record of
November 12 in this presentation. Congressman Udall, as you're all
aware, was chairman of the U.S. House Interior and Insular Affairs
Committee. His testimony was intended to explain the Congressional
intent of Title VIII of ANILCA.
"The primary concern of the Alaska Native Brotherhood is the
subsistence lifestyle and the subsistence culture which, taken in
tandem, the Congress called `cultural existence.' The cultural
existence of the Tlingit and also the Haida, was kept alive by
passing our knowledge from generation to generation. We learned
where and when to hunt, fish or gather other resources; and how to
prepare - to preserve the fish or game. These proven methods have
been with us for thousands of years.
"We have determined among ourselves to continue our cultural
existence as we have the tribal obligation to pass the knowledge on
to our children and to our grandchildren. What we need from the
state is what we ourselves have so carefully passed down from
generation to generation - cultural awareness, Mr. Chairman. You
must know that the uses of the wild renewable resources are a vital
to the cultures.
"May I address Section 801(5) of Title VIII which asks that land
managers seek out `persons with personal knowledge of local
conditions.' In the Southeast, as well in other regions, there are
elders that possess knowledge of the area, the terrain, seasons,
reproduction patterns of the species and the effects of weather.
Our elders are able to tell, in advance, which of the species will
be in abundance and which species need protective attention to
ensure reproduction. The state needs to recognize Tlingit or
traditional knowledge in its management plans for the sake of the
wild renewable resources.
"Permit me to address the plight of the cultures of the tribal
members who reside in Juneau and also in Ketchikan, and
particularly the Native children. That Native child born in 1975,
or in that period, is growing up without any knowledge of the
subsistence lifestyle, as these two communities have been closed to
subsistence since Title VIII of ANILCA was implemented in 1980.
What are they going to teach their children is the question that
needs to be answered, or is it the intent of the public policy to
destroy their cultures?
"A Native family, or indeed a Native community, transcends urban
and rural boundaries. A grandmother may live in Hoonah, a grandson
in Juneau, but each are linked by subsistence based traditions, and
a subsistence priority that draws arbitrary lines between `urban'
and `rural' members of a Native family is likewise destructive of
the very culture it was designed to protect.
"In sum, while Title VIII of the Alaska National Interest Lands
Conservation Act is intended to protect and ensure continuation of
the Alaska Native tribe cultures, the irony is that the `rural'
limitation in Title VIII is systematically destroying the cultures
of the Juneau and Native children.
"I want to thank you for the consideration you have given me today.
We should all take these proceedings as a sign that all of us are
committed to working together to preserve this state's history and
heritage. Perhaps, as a result of our efforts, the state of Alaska
could become the first state in the union that takes the necessary
steps to protect the cultures of its Native people. Thank you, Mr.
Chairman."
Number 336
WILLIAM "BILL" C. THOMAS, SR., Member, Southeast Native Subsistence
Commission, was next to come before the committee to testify. He
thanked Co-Chairman Hudson for the opportunity to testify. Mr.
Thomas read the following statement into the record:
"I reside at 35 Ridge Road in Ketchikan. I am a member of the
Southeast Native Subsistence Commission representing the Ketchikan
area Native community.
"Some of my presentation was provided, but I take responsibility in
any case. My sources tell me that Representative Hudson has stated
publicly that subsistence should be based on the individual basis,
with income as a determining factor as to the person's eligibility.
Also, the community's economic circumstance be a qualifying factor.
This is not in agreement with the Native community in Alaska.
"I'm speaking from the results at the Native summit -- the
subsistence summit in Anchorage. On November 12, 1980, in the
Congressional record, Morris K. Udall, chairman of the House
Interior and Insular Affairs Committee, explained the Conservation
Act -- the Congressional intent of Title VIII of Alaska National
Interest Lands Conservation Act. The policy also requires that the
regulatory systems which employ income requirements not be imposed
to rural residents. Income requirements, by their nature,
capricious classifications in rural Alaska, and consequently can be
invidiously destructive to Alaskan Native culture."
MR. THOMAS said he knows he repeated Mr. Willard, but he felt it
needed to be reiterated. He then continued reading:
"We also note that customary and traditional subsistence uses must
be evaluated on a community or area basis, rather than an
individual basis. I note with interest that the leadership of this
committee is hell bent on legislating Natives out of existence. I
make reference to an article in the Anchorage Daily News quoting
Representative Ogan that a constitution amendment should not occur
unless we give up sovereignty and Indian country. If it does
happen, it won't go unchallenged."
MR. THOMAS indicated he will read the resolved portion of the
resolution that was developed at the summit in Anchorage. He noted
the guiding principles are included in information he gave to the
committee members.
"Now, therefore, be it resolved, by the representatives of the
Alaska Native people assembled at the Native Subsistence Summit,
that:
"Appreciation is extended to the many Native delegates who came
despite pressing unfinished subsistence work to demonstrate their
deep commitment to the preservation of their customary and
traditional subsistence lifestyle.
"The delegates of the Native Subsistence Summit express their
appreciation for the hard work and dedication of Governor Knowles
and the other members of the Governor's task force in developing
its proposal and the attendance of the Governor and other members
of the task force at the Subsistence Summit."
MR. THOMAS explained that is the spirit of the resolution and noted
it is not all inclusive. The (indisc.) at the summit was that the
people are anxious to see the state recapture management of those
resources. He noted the committee members have a list of some of
the conditions they would like to see included.
MR. THOMAS informed the committee members that he is the chairman
of the Southeast Regional Advisory Council. He noted that has been
positive from the time of its inception or creation and that seems
to be contrary to the commitment the state has demonstrated to the
subsistence community.
Number 400
CO-CHAIRMAN HUDSON said he would like to note that he has not come
to a final position. He stated he didn't feel it was his role to
immediately determine what the final outcome is going to be until
hearings are held. Co-Chairman Hudson explained he convinced the
Speaker and other leadership in the House that the hearings should
be held. This issue has been around for many years. It has
divided the state of Alaska, and it is creating more division than
probably any other single issue. He said he may have indicated
that he felt that there was a leaning in the number of the people
in the House and the Senate to something other than what had been
presented by the Governor's task force of seven members.
CO-CHAIRMAN HUDSON said, "I believe, Bill, and I would really ask
that you and John Borbridge and other leaders, people who
communicate with certain Alaskans, we need help in finding the
solution on how we can reconcile the two sides, because if the two
sides simply essentially speak into their own forum, it's a little
bit like speaking, you know, to your own congregation. And we need
to figure how we can get these words coming across to people, in
many cases, exactly opposite views so that we can find that middle
ground that will bring us back the rights to manage our fish and
wildlife resources in the state as a state. I fear that, and I'll
say this now for the record, I fear that probably more so than
almost anything else, not so much on the game side because I think
we've lost the management of the game in many areas of Alaska
several years ago, but the fisheries, which is really vital to this
area and Southeast Alaska Native and non-Native, has a different
set of circumstances as far as management is concerned."
CO-CHAIRMAN HUDSON said he'd mentioned during the hearing in Bethel
that we have a massive drainage system called the Yukon River and
there are so many elements of importance, both to a subsistence way
of lifestyle, a commercial cash lifestyle and as well as a sports
lifestyle. He said we have to find some solutions to this issue.
Co-Chairman Hudson said it makes it difficult for the committee
members to try to go back to their colleagues with some middle
ground. He said, "We've got to find a process and if you can come
up with any stronger good constructive ways to develop that process
to where we can get people like yourself, who represent a
particular view - a subsistence view, and we respect that. We're
eager to have this input - can also be able to communicate with
people who have a different advocacy and don't understand the
intricacies of the subsistence way of life."
Number 448
MR. THOMAS said he appreciates and respects the clarification Co-
Chairman Hudson gave him. He stated he believes it, accepts it and
thanks him.
Number 450
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN said he hopes that everyone understands that
when the committee members ask questions, they are not in a
debative or an argumentive position.
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN said, "If the resolve was to be that there
would be a preference, would the community that you're representing
be amenable to the -- and if we were able to regain control within
the state, would you're community be willing to accept when there
is a deficiency of game. We heard testimony just earlier that
you're people know in advance when there is going to be a shortage
and so, historically, you've adjusted to take that into
consideration, but would the community be willing to say, `Alright,
this area is going to be short this year, therefore, we're going to
have to curtail even on a subsistence basis.' Would those kinds of
things be amenable or would you prefer as we have heard a couple of
days ago that the subsistence lifestyle says that when they need
it, they'll get it? And that may be anytime opposed to perhaps an
agency saying, `Well there is a limit here, if they want them they
go get it.'" Representative Green said he is trying to get a feel
that if Alaska ever did get control again, if there would be a
reliance on that.
Number 473
MR. THOMAS stated that is a good question. He also said he would
appreciate more if the committee members would mention management
rather than control. Mr. Thomas pointed out there is a distinct
difference on how that is approached. Control is you want to
possess something and management is you want to be part of
something.
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN stated that is a very good point and he stands
corrected.
MR. THOMAS referred to people who rely on subsistence and said, by
their nature, when they see a stock that is probably imperiled they
tend to leave it alone to give it chance to rebuild or find a way
to enhance a natural rehabilitation.
Number 480
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN asked Mr. Thomas if he sees any possible
problems with restricting one area or group and not another such as
the Tlingits or Yupiit.
Number 490
MR. THOMAS indicated he doesn't see the possibility of problems.
He stated that is why the regional concept is so effective. Mr.
Thomas said you don't hear the subsistence community saying
anything about when they are restricted; they don't say, "Well, I
need six fish a day," or so many a day like other user groups. He
said they don't protest, sign petitions, et cetera. With proper
management, subsistence should not be an issue. Proper management
would not make it an issue.
Number 497
JOE AMBROSE, Legislative Assistant to Senator Robin Taylor, asked
Mr. Thomas if his residence is within the city of Ketchikan and not
in Saxman.
MR. THOMAS indicated that he lives in the Borough of Ketchikan.
MR. AMBROSE asked Mr. Thomas if he finds it ironic that he is a
member of the Subsistence Advisory Board and he isn't subsistence-
eligible because he is classified as urban.
MR. THOMAS said it might be ironic, but he thinks it is practical.
Number 512
DONALD WESTLUND was next to come before the committee members. He
indicated he has lived in Ketchikan approximately 20 years. Mr.
Westlund referred to information titled "Summary of Draft Package
for a Subsistence Priority and Returning Fish and Game Management
to the State," which said, "to recognize the paramount importance
of the subsistence way of life to Alaskans." He asked if that is
to all Alaskans or part of the Alaskans.
MR. WESTLUND referred to the definition of "subsistence." He said
the Webster's New World Dictionary, American Language, College
Edition, states in definitions 3 and 4, "The means of support or
livelihood." He noted it doesn't talk about lifestyles at all. He
said the way he looks at this issue, Title VIII needs to be
repealed from a rural priority to a personal use priority for all
Alaskans. He stated no matter what is done to the Alaska
Constitution, the federal courts will always have the final say
under ANILCA as it is currently written. If Title VIII is changed
from rural to personal use, you can still teach the taking of fish
and game traditionally by all subsistence or personal use people,
Native or non-Native. Mr. Westlund said somebody who was born in
the state of Alaska is not a Native Alaskan. He said something
that the Native community needs to look at is when they say "Native
Alaskans," there are a lot of native Alaskans that do not have
ancestral or culturally Native ties. Mr. Westlund said he has a
long history, historically, through his ancestors, of a subsistence
lifestyle or subsistence taking of fish and game. When you say,
"Well, it's my inherent right," it's also his right. It may not be
in Alaska, but it is throughout his ancestral heritage.
MR. WESTLUND said he believes that what also needs to be tied into
the ANILCA revision is we need to push for a new federal appeals
court, as we can no longer deal with the one in San Francisco.
MR. WESTLUND referred to a testifier who said the children of
people who live in Ketchikan and Juneau, that are nonrural people,
teach their children how to catch fish and about their traditional
lifestyles; they currently do it under their personal use permits.
He said he thinks personal use would be a good avenue for resolving
these differences.
MR. WESTLUND asked whether he is correct in saying that as ANILCA
is currently written, a nonrural person has no subsistence rights.
Number 559
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN stated that isn't quite true, as there are
some areas, for example, were there are dip net rights in the
Copper River and sometimes in the Kenai River. He indicated it's
not subsistence use but it's managed under personal use.
MR. WESTLUND said it is managed under personal use. He said a lot
of people in Ketchikan have misconceptions that they are protected
under ANILCA in that they have subsistence rights because they are
Native. They live in a nonrural area, so they don't have
subsistence rights.
Number 568
REPRESENTATATIVE NICHOLIA referred to subsistence rights and
Ketchikan not being a rural area, and she pointed out they do have
the Tier 1 and Tier 2 requirements. The requirements are a right
to a similar subsistence way of life which would give them the
priority over the nonresidents coming in if there were a shortage
of fish or game.
Number 581
MR. BOSWORTH explained that one of the complicated issues that the
department is currently dealing with is dual management, where you
have a federal and state system together.
REPRESENTATIVE NICHOLIA asked him to address the state law.
MR. BOSWORTH said under state law, all Alaskans are eligible for
subsistence. In times of shortage, there is the Tier 1 process
which eliminates essentially nonresident hunters. He referred to
Tier 2 and said a person would fill out a questionnaire and the
most dependent individual is, therefore, eligible to participate
and gets a permit for a Tier 2 hunt. He said, "Yes, we do have a
process for making that determination under the state system."
Number 591
MR. WESTLUND said the issue really needs review. He said, "If you
do it under personal use for all Alaskans, whether you're Native or
non-Native -- and I don't think that should be an issue. I think
it should be a resident of the state has priority for a state
resource. I really think that we could solve a lot of problems,
get by a lot of bias and disagreements between cultures, if it was
just under personal use for residents of Alaska. I think it would
simplify ANILCA in a lot of ways. It would give everybody an equal
stance in federal court, make it easier for the state to manage
fish and game, and it might satisfy the federal government; I don't
know."
TAPE 97-61, SIDE A
Number 001
MELVIN J. CHARLES was next to testify. He informed the committee
members he is from Saxman. He stated he is not a public speaker,
but he has been studying law for the last two years. Mr. Charles
referred to rural and urban and said that is not in compliance with
the Native lifestyle. He said, "For thousands of years my Native
people have been controlling this land. Now we have strangers in
our midst telling us what we can and cannot do. You cannot
interfere with our lifestyle without just compensation. I feel
that our Alaskan Native people should put a (indisc.) multi-million
dollar lawsuit against the state legislators and law office against
the state of Alaska for just compensation. I'm sorry, but I have
a lot to say but I cannot say it at this time. Thank you."
Number 050
ROYCE RENNIGER, Commercial Fisherman, came before the committee
members to testify. He noted he lives in Ketchikan. Mr. Renniger
said he thinks the issue should go the Supreme Court as there are
too many loopholes and questions. He believes there are a lot of
people who are really scared of what they'll wind up with and he is
one of them. Mr. Renniger said, "As a commercial gillnetter, I
don't know where I sit. Can somebody tell me when I'm going to get
to fish if all this is enacted? And where do you cut off how much
subsistence goes to an individual before I get to put my net in the
water and earn a living? And I've lived in Alaska for 40 some
years now. I'm not a Alaskan Native, but my wife was born and
raised here, her father was born and raised here. Her family goes
way back."
MR. RENNIGER continued, "I think there is so many questions that a
lot of people are really nervous about. And I, quite frankly, am
going to sit here and tell you I don't think it's - I think it's
going to get voted down because there are too many open loopholes.
I see all kinds of loopholes in everything I've read here this
morning because they're trying to satisfy every little detail. And
I, quite frankly, don't see a problem. I don't see a problem, I
really don't. Where is the problem? I've lived here all these
years, and I've never known a problem to exist like this. I mean,
people still get to go out and fish and hunt. Nobody is going
hungry. Is anybody going hungry?"
MR. RENNIGER continued, "There is problems in the Northern Region
and I can understand that you got those in-river communities and
stuff that a lot of times maybe they don't get the escapement they
feel they need or whatever. And I'm going to go back to what I've
said at every hearing I've ever been to in regard to fish and game:
The state is too large to be managed the way it is in our fish and
game management. It's way too large. They have problems in the
North land that don't even relate to us and we have problems that
don't even relate to them and they're trying to manage the whole
thing under one scenario, one set of rules, and it never works.
This is the first fish/game board management meeting that we've had
here in Ketchikan that I thought went really well. Everybody went
away a little bit unhappy and a little bit happy, if that makes any
sense to you, because the Board of Fish[eries] did a real good job
of addressing a lot of issues that we have down here. That's the
way I feel, and a lot of my associates feel that way too, I
believe. But it still is -- there were people that were really
quite unhappy too because of the way -- it affects everybody in the
state the way things go. And it's set up all wrong. Our state is
too big. We need two states, and I've said it forever: Southeast
Alaska and Alaska."
MR. RENNIGER asked if you can satisfy the commercial fishermen,
seiners, trollers and gillnetters, no matter where they come from
and when will they be able to fish. He asked how it will affect
the commercial fishermen. He said he doesn't see an answer.
Number 119
REPRESENTATIVE NICHOLIA said everybody tends to forget that at one
time there was a rural priority and it didn't change anything. The
only time the rural priority kicked was when there was a shortage.
She said it doesn't have an impact on Ketchikan because Ketchikan
is a nonrural area. Ketchikan would fall under different
regulations such as the Tier 1 and Tier 2 provision.
Representative Nicholia said the current problem is that we have
dual management in Alaska. The question is, "Which management
regime do we want to be under? Do we want to be under dual
management or do we want to regain statement management?" She said
having a rural priority provision back in the state again and
regaining statement management doesn't change anything for the
commercial fisherman unless there is a shortage.
MR. RENNIGER said as he reads the information and proposals that
could fit in, it opens so many loopholes. He doesn't believe the
federal government should be involved in anything that is being
done in the state of Alaska. Our constitution says equality for
all, and he feels that was a well-written constitution.
Number 154
CO-CHAIRMAN HUDSON said he wasn't in attendance to defend the
proposal, as he wasn't a part of the seven-member task force that
put together the three-part fix. The reason for trying to come up
with some sort of a fix is because Alaska has been told by the
courts that any management of fish and wildlife with a rural
preference is in violation of the Alaska Constitution. Co-Chairman
Hudson said Alaska has been told by the federal judges and
authorities, the people who would manage and take over the
management through Title VIII of ANILCA, that there must be a rural
preference.
MR. RENNIGER questioned whether that is discriminatory.
CO-CHAIRMAN HUDSON said it may be, but it is the federal law. He
referred to Mr. Renniger's saying that this should be taken to the
Supreme Court and said there are many people who would love to see
that happen because it might reconcile it. He said the problem is
that it is not easy to get before the U.S. Supreme Court, as they
don't hear just anything. He stated that Mr. Renniger is a
commercial fisherman and noted one of his biggest concerns and the
reason he wanted to see this issue go out for hearings is because
he fears that dual management could be the U.S. Forest Service,
national monuments, Bureau of Land Management, perhaps the Bureau
of Indian Affairs, and the Alaska Department of Fish and Game.
Co-CHAIRMAN HUDSON said, "All of these people having some invested
interest in it, and as you know, these fish, they leave the stream
and they go far to sea and they come back fat and some of them have
a big `Canadian' on them.... You see how complex it is, but can you
imagine how difficult it would be if all of the streams were thrown
into the pot and everybody who felt like -- they're the Forest
Service and they have responsibility in the Tongass out to three
miles, usurp the three miles, they would essentially have a hand in
trying to determine how the management is going to (indisc.) take
place there. And if we don't do something, my fear is that we're
going to have layer and layer of multiple management, tremendous
expense, and we're not going to be able to operate as timely and as
dynamically as I believe, at any rate, we have to do. Under a
single management scheme by the state of Alaska, we can do that.
And it's the proposal, at any rate, from the seven-member task
force attempts to get the federal government to acknowledge that we
are in compliance with federal law and, at the same time, provide
whatever mechanism is necessary in the constitution, if we need be,
or statutorily, at any rate, in order to obtain that right to
manage our own fish and wildlife. To me, as a state's rights
advocate, I am really offended by the federal government holding a
hammer over our heads saying that you either play by our rules,
which many of us believe are maybe not unconstitutional, but
certainly in that fate when they granted us statehood." Co-
Chairman Hudson stated that it is a complex issue, it's multi-
tiered, we can do the management, we'll always probably have some
federal involvement in the management because of the federal lands.
CO-CHAIRMAN HUDSON said, "We have so many question marks involved
into this whole thing now that at least this task force proposal
tries to address all of those in a connective way. It ultimately
places in your hands, the people of Alaska, an opportunity
providing we, the legislature, give it to you to vote to determine
whether or not you believe that there ought to be a way within the
constitution for the lawmakers of Alaska, your representatives, to
afford you the opportunity to pass the laws that will determine the
management that will make certain that you know when you can fish,
that will guarantee that fish are enhanced and habitat is
maintained and hatcheries and things of this nature -- a whole
management scheme. All rivers, as they cross through migratory
ways, as you know the intercept cases and things of this nature,
are extremely complex. But right now it's threatened, in my
opinion, by the threat of the court ordered federal takeover and
the ambiguity within the definitions of the instrument that would
afford that takeover."
Number 236
MR. RENNIGER said he came to Alaska in 1955 with his parents. He
said he has been to Anchorage once, and he doesn't understand the
problems in the North land. He referred to Representative
Nicholia's saying that she has a rural problem right now and asked
her where she is from.
Number 245
REPRESENTATIVE NICHOLIA responded she is from Tanana on the Yukon
River.
MR. RENNIGER asked her what her problem is. He asked if she isn't
getting enough fish.
REPRESENTATIVE NICHOLIA stated she didn't say anything like that.
MR. RENNIGER apologized for his misunderstanding.
Number 250
REPRESENTATIVE WILLIAMS referred to Mr. Renniger's making a comment
about going to the Supreme Court first.
MR. RENNIGER interrupted, saying that he thinks our constitution is
right.
REPRESENTATIVE WILLIAMS said he knows what Mr. Renniger is saying.
He pointed out there was constitutional amendment for limited entry
which was passed. He discussed how his son has been fishing for
the last ten years and wants to get a limited entry permit, but he
can't afford it. Representative Williams said limited entry was a
tool that this state saw how we could manage our fish resources in
a better manner. He stated he agrees with that, but he doesn't
agree with putting a price tag on limited entry permits. It should
have gone back to the state where anybody could have got one. It
was just a permit and wasn't "worth $50,000, $100,000, $250,000 or
whatever it may have been." He stated that going to the Supreme
Court is like trying to talk to God. You cannot talk to the
judges, you can talk at them, but you can't talk with them.
Representative Williams said he would prefer it stay out of the
Supreme Court. He indicated he would rather negotiate something
and get the management back to the state of Alaska. Representative
Williams said he is not telling anyone how it should be done. What
he would like to be done is to find a solution that would assure us
that the state is in management. He said he agrees that we have
the best management in the world. Representative Williams pointed
out that he was fishing in 1955, when they used to fish seven days
a week and at the end of the seine season they may have caught
maybe 50,000 fish. Now you can get that in one day because of the
fact that the management came to the Alaska Department of Fish and
Game. We have a proven system here.
Number 295
GEORGE JAMES, JR., Kuiu Thhinggit Nation, came before the committee
to testify. He spoke his Tlingit name and said his great
grandfather and great grandfather also had the same name, Sumta
(ph), which means "Always been there." Mr. James said he can trace
his tribal lineage back before George Washington became President.
Mr. James said that we have three choices to make. He continued to
read his statement into the record:
"The Native peoples of Alaska, the indigenous people only, have
three choices to make. Only indigenous peoples can make these
choices, no one else can make it for them. The choices have
everything to do with your traditional tribal lands, waters and
resources. You will choose who controls and manages everything.
The three choices are, and mind you these choices were agreed upon
by the United States, Great Britain and everybody that's a
signatory to it and the U.N. (United Nations): 1) The number one
choice is you and you're tribe can stay just as everything is now
with the state of Alaska, with its ADCs and the United States
government and its agencies controlling everything and telling you
what to do; and 2) You and your tribe can choose to become like a
commonwealth of Puerto Rico, where all the people run their country
just like the United States of America, with no tribal control of
any kind. You and your tribe will have no right to manage any
agreements with any other nations and the United States of America
are still going to be in control and be the big boss. And the
third choice is the most important one of all. You and your tribe
can choose to completely control everything in your traditional
lands, waters and resources. No outside people can tell you and
you're tribe what to do. The third choice completely gets rid of
any control, rules, laws, regulations from both the state of Alaska
and the United States of America. All their powers will return to
you and your people and no one else. The third choice is for total
independence and sovereignty.
"The right for indigenous people of Alaska to make any of these
choices are guaranteed by international covenants and agreements
and laws. Article 27 of the International Covenant of Civil and
Political Rights, GAR 1514 of 14 December, 1960, Declaration of
Granting Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples, (2) `All
peoples have the right to self determination; by virtue of that
right they freely determine their political status and freely
pursue their economic and cultural development.'
"Convention on elimination of all forms of racial discrimination
protects rights to utilization of the resources, land and waters.
"A draft convention and declaration on the rights of indigenous
peoples.
"To add power to the strength of the covenants given by indigenous
people of Alaska." Mr. James noted he also has copies of the
"Smoking Gun." He said, "What the `Smoking Gun' says we have the
land titlest specialist and there no one better than him in the
United States. And what he did is he's did research at the
Smithsonian, he did research at the Congressional records, he did
research at the national archives. There is nothing on record to
show that the United States bought Alaska. There is nothing on
record to show that Russia sold it. There is nothing on record at
all. If you folks know where the records are, please let me know."
MR. JAMES continued to read his statement:
"This document from the United States archives in Washington, D.C.,
clearly says that Russia never owned the region of Alaska;
therefore, Imperial Russia could not sell what they did not own.
You and your traditional tribe still own your traditional lands,
waters and resources.
"The Smoking Gun consists of a series of letters and documents from
the United States archives in Washington, D.C., created between
1821 and 1824 during the negotiation of a convention between the
U.S. and Russia brought about by an edict published by the tsar of
Russia in 1821.
"What are the next steps to take? 1) All of the indigenous peoples
of Alaska will have to make a choice by voting. Only they can
vote, no immigrants will be allowed to vote or campaign for or
against these three choices. A special time for voting will be set
aside. Maybe a year or so it will take, but it's up to the
traditional tribal leaders and your tribal elders and councils to
do this and this is guaranteed by the United Nations."
Mr. James said by having this subsistence hearing, he sees people
are trying to help them out, but who helped them when the
legislature wasn't here. He stated they've done it by themselves,
for thousands of years they did it by themselves. He gave the
committee members copies of his testimony. Mr. James noted his
attorney, Mr. James P. Bailey, also has a video. He noted Mr.
Bailey, who is a doctor of law, land and is also a title
specialist, told the tribal council that when they get close to the
goal of being self governing, deal makers will be coming out of the
woodwork and will make offers that will be hard to refuse.
MR. JAMES pointed out that the term "Indian country" is being used
freely. He said he would inform the committee he isn't an Indian.
That is what Congress called them. The state now feels they have
settle this subsistence matter once and for all. He asked what the
big rush is as they have been here for 10,000 years. The term
"rural priority" is always being used. Only the rural people can
live a subsistence lifestyle. Mr. James asked the committee
members if they came and asked him what they could have for
breakfast. He said if he has to ask what he can eat, the committee
better ask him what they can eat. He stated everybody deserves to
live and he is getting tired of people telling him how to live.
MR. JAMES explained his parents were moved off of Kuiu Island in
1934. There were more students on that island than in the Village
of Klawock, where they were forced to move. He said this was all
a conspiracy to take the land away from them and make them
something that they weren't intended to be. Mr. James said they
are willing to sit down and discuss the issue. He stated the
choices are up to the indigenous people of Alaska and no one else.
Number 421
BOB WEINSTEIN came forward to testify regarding subsistence. He
noted he is a member of the Ketchikan City Council, but is
testifying on his own behalf. Mr. Weinstein stated he is not a
legal or constitutional scholar or a scholar on the issue of
subsistence. However, one thing he has growing expertise in is the
impasse of federal management. He said most people in Ketchikan
have had it with federal management. Over the last year, a
significant portion of their largest employer closed as a result of
federal management. After ten years of study and $15 million of
federal tax expense, there is the Tongass Land Management Plan
(TLMP) which still can not answer whether there will be a
sufficient timber supply in Ketchikan to meet current and planned
capacity.
MR. WEINSTEIN said his testimony is: It seems that the worst
option is to do nothing and have federal management. He said the
legislators have been elected to come up with the solution that can
balance the competing interests and keep out further federal
encroachment on the management of the lives of people in Ketchikan
and elsewhere in the state. He noted he isn't familiar with the
details of the task force proposal, but if that doesn't work the
legislature needs to come up with another solution that will
prevent further federal encroachment in the lives of our people.
Number 452
JOE DEMMERT, JR., was next to come before the committee. He asked
how many committee members have a limited entry permit.
CO-CHAIRMAN HUDSON indicated Representative Dyson has a limited
entry permit.
MR. DEMMERT suggested the rest of the committee is at loss. He
said, "When the state amended the constitution, this very same
provision that we're discussing amending -- where subsistence
priority -- we gave over 90 percent of the salmon of the resource
to people that own these permits. So, it puts the rest of you at
a disadvantage right at the beginning, yet how many hearings did
they conduct when they amended it to provide for limited entry.
They were talking about up to 95 percent of the salmon resource.
And I speak to the salmon simply because we are still the world's
largest producer of wild salmon. When we amended the constitution
to provide limited entry, we gave over 90 percent of that resource
to the people that own these permits and the issue at the time was
conservation of the resource. Today, we're talking about another
amendment, that same provision in the constitution that provides
equal access. (Indisc.) are we talking about a conservation issue?
We're talking about listing two percent of the salmon resource,
statewide, that is utilized for subsistence. I'd say the error in
managing those resources in any given year is greater than the
amount that's being utilized for subsistence. It has become such
a divisive issue. What are the problems? What are we speaking
about when we talk about amending the constitution to provide a
rural priority. That priority goes into effect only when there is
a shortage of a resource and I doubt if I ever see a shortage of
the salmon resources in the rest of my lifetime. I've never seen
that and I've been here for over 70 years now. I've been a
commercial fisherman, this is sixty-first year as a purse seiner."
MR. DEMMERT said he almost decided not to attend because two
minutes provides a person hardly enough time to introduce oneself.
Mr. Demmert continued to discuss his background by saying he has
served two terms on the state Board of Fish and Game when it was a
joint board. He served one term on the Board of Fisheries in 1986
through 1989, when the state enacted a new subsistence law. Mr.
Demmert said it was the Board of Fisheries and the Board of Game
that had to adopt regulations to enact the new law that would put
the state in compliance with ANILCA. They spent endless hours and
days conducting hearings throughout the state to come up
regulations that would be acceptable and in compliance with federal
law. The McDowell Group took it to court and, unfortunately, that
new law was declared unconstitutional in the courts. He stated he
still feels that the regulations that were adopted to enact that
law would have laid subsistence to rest because they weren't
speaking of a great deal of the resources. Mr. Demmert referred to
comments from different people about going back to state management
and said he fished under state management and has been a boat owner
since 1949, and he knows what state management can do. He has
served one term on the North Pacific Council. That is an example
of state management which leaves a lot to be desired. Having
served on the state Board of Fish and Game, the resource was number
one, but that isn't the case with the North Pacific Council. Mr.
Demmert indicated he didn't feel comfortable serving on the council
even thought there were a lot of highly qualified people. He
didn't agree with a lot of the decisions the council made as the
resource was not the number one objective.
MR. DEMMERT referred to the issues in relation to subsistence and
amending the state constitution and said it has already been
amended to deny most people equal access to our salmon resources.
Many of the permit holders are nonresidents. He said he is having
a difficult time trying to figure out what the main objections are
to amending the constitution to provide for rural priority when it
has already been amended to give away over 90 percent of salmon
resources to the permit holders. Mr. Demmert said if the
legislature would take a look at the regulations that the "North
Pacific Council" spent so much time on, it could be a good starting
point on how the state should go about managing subsistence -
managing our salmon resources that would put us in compliance with
state law. He noted Mr. Bosworth was at many of the hearings and
he probably has a lot of information that would be very helpful to
the committee, during deliberations, in getting the legislature to
come up with an amendment to the constitution. He referred to one
of the provisions in the regulations the council adopted and said
it would provide personal use for other Alaskan residents. The
only difference would be that you would need a sport fish license
to participate. He indicated subsistence food has been a part of
his diet since the beginning of his life and there isn't anyone
around that is going to change that. He said even though he now
resides in a nonrural community, he will still be able to go out
and harvest the food that he has been accustomed to all of his
life. Mr. Demmert explained that some of his close personal
friends have changed their diets to a non-Native diet and many of
them have medical problems. He hasn't had any medical problems, so
there is no reason for him to change his diet at this point in his
life.
MR. DEMMERT said he thinks this subsistence issue has gone far
beyond what any reasonable person would consider. Why deny people
access to 2 percent of the resource? As an Alaskan, he would
encourage all Alaskans to sit down and look at the pros and cons.
MR. DEMMERT referred to a recommendation by the Governor's task
force and said, "The one provision on amending would be permissive,
you know, on it whether the priority would be agreed upon or not."
He said he doesn't think that is a good provision because when we
gave 90 percent of the salmon resource to limited entry permit
holders, there were no restrictions on how limited entry would be
adopted. Subsistence is 2 percent of the resource and we're trying
to impose limits on how this should be implemented. He thanked the
committee for the opportunity to speak.
Number 569
CO-CHAIRMAN HUDSON said he would like to personally thank Mr.
Demmert for leading the committee into what he believes is an
element of solution. He said if he heard him right, he isn't a
strong advocate of federal control, but he believes we should
manage our fisheries and game in the state of Alaska by the state
of Alaska. Co-Chairman Hudson asked if he is correct in saying
that.
MR. DEMMERT responded in the affirmative. He informed the
committee that before statehood, our salmon stocks were depleted to
the point where some of them probably never recovered. Mr. Demmert
said we've done a very good job, statewide, managing our fish and
game resources. We made a very strong commitment in doing that, we
hired some of the best scientists in the (indisc.) to guide us in
the way that our fish and game has been managed as a state.
Number 580
REPRESENTATIVE NICHOLIA commended Mr. Demmert for his services to
the Board of Fisheries and the Board of Game. She said Mr. Demmert
mentioned the Governor's task force proposal, which says, "The
constitution will be amended to permit, but not to require ...."
She asked Mr. Demmert whether he thinks that section should be
changed from "may" to "shall require to grant a subsistence
priority to rural residents."
MR. DEMMERT said, "As I stated when we amended the constitution the
first time to allow limited entry, I don't think we put any
restrictions on how we should go about that, and I feel this
provision in this proposal is restrictive. I think they were right
to provide for rural preference and we should do it. That is the
intent of the amendment to the constitution and that's what it
should do."
Number 592
REPRESENTATIVE DYSON stated that he shares Mr. Demmert's
appreciation for the good job that the Department of Fish and Game
has done in the management of the resources. He said he struggled
when he was in Bethel to find out why many of the local residents
had so much confidence that the federal government would do a
better job. Representative Dyson said the federal management of
fisheries in Washington and Oregon doesn't have a good record.
Apparently, the people in Western Alaska are encouraged by what the
federal government has done with the local subsistence boards as
they have paid a lot attention to local knowledge and the wisdom of
the elders. He said he feels their confidence has to do with that
recent experience of dealing with the federal government.
Representative Dyson indicated he doesn't share that confidence.
He stated that over the 20 plus years that he has been fishing for
sockeye, in the last two years we've seen a shortage in the Bristol
Bay fishery, and 10 million fish from the Kvichavak River system
have disappeared and it's unknown where they went.
TAPE 97-61, SIDE B
Number 001
REPRESENTATIVE DYSON thanked Mr. Demmert for his state service and
for giving the committee his perspective.
MR. DEMMERT indicated he had one other comment. He said in
Southeast Alaska, we are clearly aware of what federal management
has done to our other renewable resources. The timber industry has
gone by the wayside, which he attributes to the federal management.
Number 020
REPRESENTATIVE NICHOLIA referred to Representative Dyson speaking
about Western Alaska and those people not having a lot of
confidence in the state of Alaska. She said he failed to mention
that the people also said they are losing faith in the state of
Alaska because of the budget cuts to the Division of Commercial
Fisheries and to the Division of Subsistence, the local and
regional advisory committees and councils. So, their participation
in the state process is diminished. Now the federal government is
coming and providing the funds.
Number 039
REPRESENTATIVE REGGIE JOULE explained he has been listening via
teleconference from Barrow. He referred to the Bethel hearing and
said he would like to bring up two issues. One is the issue of co-
management. People feel very much a part of the process to a
recognized system such as the federal Advisory Fish and Game
Boards. They have seen it work. Their input to that system has
made positive impacts in the preservation and in the harvesting
methods. That is one of the reasons they are not afraid of federal
management. Representative Joule explained that almost everyone
who provided testimony said that while they would welcome federal
management, they would prefer to see the legislature allow the
people of the state of Alaska to vote on the issue of whether or
not the state of Alaska should have a rural priority.
Number 072
MR. DEMMERT indicated he had an additional comment regarding the
proposed amendments to ANILCA. Our Congressional delegation has
cautioned us for many years on opening ANILCA to amendments. We
need to be very careful in how we go about doing that because if it
was opened up, we could end up with problems like we had with our
timber industry. We'll have people that are not familiar with the
resources in Alaska that will come up with a mechanism that will
have a drastic impact on Alaska resources. We need to listen to
our Congressional delegation as they are cautioning us for a
reason. Under federal management we could have environmentalists
sitting on the panel that will have an impact on how we manage our
fish and game resources. He again stated he believes state
management is the best alternative we have available.
Number 105
MR. AMBROSE referred to the term "in times of shortage" and asked
if there is anything in the constitutional amendment that restricts
the preference to "in times of shortage." He said he had thought
it was the number one priority.
MR. BOSWORTH informed the committee that the constitutional
amendment provides that the legislature may enact laws allowing a
rural preference. There is nothing in the constitutional amendment
that speaks to "shortage."
Number 118
MR. AMBROSE asked if there is anything else in the rest of the
proposal that limits it to times of shortage.
MR. BOSWORTH explained the way the preference is implemented by the
boards of fisheries and game. It does provide that subsistence
uses must be provided for, and once the boards have determined that
has been accomplished, then other uses are provided for.
Number 158
DICK COOSE came before the committee to testify. He stated he does
not support the Governor's task force proposal or the
Murkowski/Young proposals as written. Neither one of the proposals
provide enough protection for Alaskans to manage our fish and game
from the federal government control. They're too loose. He noted
he has given the task forces his comments. Mr. Coose said he
doesn't believe that ANILCA, Title VIII, is legal under our federal
constitution and there are documents that he believes some of the
state agencies have which stated that it wasn't legal when it was
passed. He said in his opinion, the Governor and legislature needs
to exhaust all legal means to determine whether or not that's true
or not before Alaska is forced into negotiating with the federal
government on the issues. We need to know without being panicked
into doing it.
MR. COOSE stated he believes that ANILCA, as written, is being used
and abused mainly by people and organizations outside of this
state. They are using it to stop resource management. The Tongass
is part of it as they use it to prevent timber harvesting, mining
or any other thing. We've got to be real careful about how we
allow subsistence laws to be used because they will eventually
screw up this state's economy. Mr. Coose said we have got to
somehow look beyond the issue and look at the bigger picture and
see how this is going to mess up this state. Mr. Coose informed
the committee members he really supports all Alaskans being able to
harvest fish and game to feed their families. It is a basic
Alaskan right, it's all of our rights, as Alaskans, to be able to
have fish and game on our table to feed our families.
MR. COOSE said there is one really important aspect of ANILCA,
Title VIII. He said he thinks that there was an intent to make
sure that Alaskans could hunt and fish on all the federal lands
that they designated as parks and refuges because otherwise, they
would have taken that right always from all Alaskans. We need to
attempt to protect the right to utilize our federal lands as we
know best how to do it. He said he supports Alaskan's rights,
under the existing state constitution and appropriate state laws,
that will assure all Alaskans the right to continue to gather fish
and game to feed their families.
MR. COOSE informed the committee members that he does not support
the commercial sale of any fish and game products or other things
gathered for personal subsistence use. The federal courts and the
government must not have any oversight over our fish and game
management. Mr. Coose said he would ask the legislature to protect
his Alaska personal rights and to protect the rights of Alaskans to
manage their own fish and game resources, on a sustained yield
basis, and to provide for Alaskans the right to gather fish and
game to feed their families.
Number 224
REPRESENTATIVE NICHOLIA asked Mr. Coose if he holds a commercial
fishing permit.
MR. COOSE indicated he does not. He said he doesn't consider
himself a commercial fisherman. Mr. Coose said he enjoys sports
hunting and fishing on occasion, but he thinks if someone needs to
feel their family they need to be able to do it.
Number 429
REPRESENTATIVE NICHOLIA said, "Say that you depend on the
fisheries. Now there is a fishery shortage and you needed to feed
you family. Would you appreciate it -- while you're trying to get
that fish for your family and fishermen came down from Anchorage to
fish in the waters here while you're trying to do that. Would you
appreciate that? What's you views on that?"
MR. COOSE said he doesn't think he'd feel good about that. He said
he thinks management of fish and game is typically on a local type
of a basis.
Number 250
K. A. SWIGER, Ketchikan Sports and Wildlife Club, came before the
committee to give her testimony, saying she agrees with numerous
other speakers. She read the following statement into the record:
"I'm a Native Alaskan, a lifelong resident of Alaska. My family
has been here for 50 years, they've dedicated their lives to the
future of this state and taken part in the challenge of a territory
becoming a state. I want to go on record not supporting either the
Governor's task force proposal or our Congressional delegation's
solution to this problem.
"The state constitution called for us all to be citizens. All of
us are Alaskans, and to have equal access to the bountiful
resources of our great land. I believe this constitution should be
honored. The divisiveness created by ANILCA has, in my opinion,
been detrimental to this state and its people.
"It is an insult to me personally that subsistence rights be given
to only certain people based upon whatever criteria, race, culture,
finance or income or location in the state. It's all divisive
criteria. If we all go back, even in the not so distant past,
have not all of our forefathers at one time subsisted upon the
bounties of the land and sea? Can this not be considered
traditional and cultural? Furthermore, have we ever been asked how
important subsistence is to us, or how we use the opportunity and
depend upon it?
"I believe the state constitution set out to respect this issue
and, therefore, declared all Alaskans the subsistence entitlement.
I, therefore, strongly urge the Alaska legislature to take actions
to promote rectifying the wrong in ANILCA.
"State management of fish and game has been highly successful in at
least Southeast Alaska, presented today, if maybe not so
successfully elsewhere in Alaska, but I believe overall it's been
successful and it has done so with subsistence opportunities
available to all. Has there been a problem? Do we have shortages
that we can't rectify other than the cyclical nature of fish runs?
"Lastly, it is of paramount importance that the legislature do what
it can to ensure a continued moratorium, if necessary, of the
federal takeover of fish and game and they do that before the
details of this subsistence issue be worked out. They're planning
to take over, as we all know on October 1st, the commercial
fishery. This can only lead to a disaster. Federal management of
resources have had a poor history in this state and should not
continue. Thank you."
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN referred to Ms. Swiger urging that the issue
be resolved prior to October 1 and said there will be more public
hearings up until that point. There will probably be no way to
resolve the issue by October 1. He said there is probably
divisiveness and asked what she thinks would be a way to resolve
the issue that would satisfy the federal government.
MS. SWIGER stated she doesn't envy anybody trying to solve this
issue. She said she doesn't think it will be solved before the
federal takeover. We all have to accept responsibility that this
has been an issue coming for a long time and nobody wanted to touch
it because of the critical emotional nature of the issue. It seems
her that we are all at fault for not doing that. Ms. Swiger
explained that from what she understands, Alaska's Congressional
delegation has provided a moratorium hoping we would all get
together and work it out. We haven't until now, a month before the
federal takeover of the commercial fishery. Hopefully, what is now
being done it will prove to the federal government that we're
trying to do something and they will instigate another moratorium
and we'll promise to continue to rectify this problem. She said
that is the solution she sees. Ms. Swiger said to get the federal
government out of the state is the most important thing we need to
work on now and we'll hash out the subsistence rural preference or
no rural preference later.
REPRESENTATIVE NICHOLIA asked Ms. Swiger if she fishes or hunts.
MS. SWIGER indicated she does both.
REPRESENTATIVE NICHOLIA asked what she fishes and hunts for.
MS. SWIGER pointed out that she is not a commercial fisherman. She
said she fishes for salmon, and she sure would like to get her
subsistence sockeye in the freezer. She noted she hunts for deer
and would hunt for moose if she could.
Number 359
ERIC MUENCH came before the committee to testify. He informed the
members he lives in Ketchikan. Mr. Muench stated he generally
supports the thrust of the task force proposal, but he does have
problems with some of it. He indicated he supports a subsistence
amendment to the Alaska Constitution. He said this a moral issue
of fairness and local control of resources and it should have been
a part of the Alaska Constitution right from the beginning. He
stated he thinks it probably wasn't because in the 1950s when it
was being written, he doubts that there was the ability to foresee
the mobility - the ease of getting into the bush like there is now.
Mr. Muench stated the need is now. Alaska needs to address the
genuine subsistence concern needs of a significant portion of its
people who depend on fish and game and natural crop harvest for
most or all of their livelihood. That is independent of any need
to resolve a conflict with federal law. That need is there too,
but the need of fairness and local control is entirely a separate
issue that stands on its own.
MR. MUENCH said in order to get support, both the amendment and the
law language needs to be fair to everyone in the state and should
apply only where subsistence is truly needed. He said he thinks
that is the key. Mr. Muench said he has been in Southeast Alaska
for 36 years and he doesn't believe that he knows of any area in
Southeast that is truly subsistence dependent. Even the smallest
and most rural areas of Southeast have access to some form of work
or income besides subsistence alone. There is logging, tourism,
fishing or something else. Mr. Muench said it is primarily a
problem in the North and Interior, of which he doesn't know a whole
lot about. He said he doesn't know if there has been problems as
far as actual food supplies to families up there or not, but he
does believe that we need to have something in our basic state
constitution and law that provides for those needs.
MR. MUENCH said he believes there are three principles that would
have to be adhered to in order to make it fair and make it apply
only where needed. These would be that the subsistence preference
apply only to geographic areas that are truly dependent on fish and
game and natural crop harvest to provide the majority of residents
with most or all of their livelihood. Secondly, he thinks
subsistence harvest rights should apply only when that geographic
area can sustain subsistence level harvest by all the residents
that need it without causing resource depletion. Mr. Muench said
the third thing he believes is subsistence harvest rights must
apply to all permanent year-round residence of a subsistence
preference area without regard to individual economic status or to
race or to family history. Mr. Muench said with regard to that, he
believes some of the points in the Governor's task force proposal
are worth a comment. The priority statement of community or areas
substantially dependent on fish and game for nutritional and other
subsistence uses is good. Mr. Muench said he believes the second
point relating to customary and traditional should not apply
because subsistence is primarily an economic issue. It's an issue
of whether the people are able to supply their livelihoods through
other economic endeavors besides hunting and fishing. That will
change over time and customary and traditional really has nothing
to do with that aspect of it.
MR. MUENCH said, "Regarding issue number six, nonrural subsistence,
I don't believe that that belongs in this language. Taking fish
and game for educational purposes, proxy hunting by nonrural
residents -- there is nothing wrong with those things as a -- in
individual cases, but I don't believe there should be a blanket
language allowing those unless there is a special need
demonstrated."
MR. MUENCH explained that he believes there should be an emphasis
on language in any constitutional amendment and law. He stated he
has a particular problem with language that includes the word
"rural." It has been really goofed up in the federal
administration of ANILCA subsistence. Mr. Muench said rural
doesn't mean a whole lot. Anybody that lives outside of a city or
a built up area is rural. We have rural areas that are
agricultural. We have rural areas where timber, fishing and other
economic activity is very important and they don't have any
subsistence dependence. He said he thinks the wording "subsistence
dependent" rather than "rural" should be used. Mr. Muench said we
have to be careful of the wording "customary" and "traditional,"
because the federal government has used those words to create a
defacto segregation of subsistence rights by race. That should not
happen under the state's program.
MR. MUENCH said he does believe that ANILCA is not constitutional
under the U.S. Constitution, but he doesn't believe that is an
issue we can attack at this moment as a method of preventing
federal takeover. He said, "I think we have to go the way the
Governor's task force has proposed for now."
MR. MUENCH quoted the Tenth Amendment from the U.S. Constitution.
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the constitution
nor prohibited by it to the states are reserved to the states
respectively or to the people." He said there is nothing in the
constitution that talks about federal management of fish and game.
He indicated he believes that ANILCA as well as other things
Congress has done over the years to centralize power in the federal
government is unconstitutional. He said we should pursue that, but
he doesn't think that at this time we can use that as a substitute
for amending our own approach to subsistence needs in the state.
Number 459
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN said he is a strong believer in state's rights
and he thinks we have a government that is far too intrusive. He
referred to Mr. Muench's saying that he doesn't think that the
criteria should be based in economics, but rather an area that is
dependent on subsistence. He asked him about people within an area
that is considered to be subsistence dependent. He said what if
there is a person that is independently wealthy and lives in an
area that is subsistence dependent, by choice. Would that person,
by virtue, have a higher right than someone who lived out of that
area?
Number 472
MR. MUENCH explained that his vision is to identify areas of the
state that are genuinely dependent on subsistence for the majority
of their population to make a living. He noted that when he speaks
of economics, he is not talking only about industrial economics;
hunting, fishing and trapping are part of some people's economics.
Mr. Muench said he thinks that within the areas that are identified
that way, they would have to be picked with a great deal of care
and consistent conditions.
MR. MUENCH said most of those conditions would be economic in
nature, such as very few job opportunities or very little
transportation availability to jobs outside of the area that people
could use and still remain full-time residents of the area. Once
these areas are identified, he doesn't believe that it would be
proper to differentiate between residents because then it will
almost be made into a welfare program or would introduce a
possibility of differentiating by race or by customary and
traditional language. He said he doesn't believe that is right.
He believes that once the area has been identified, it needs to
apply to all full-time year-round residents. Most of the
subsistence preference people, in his view, would be Alaskan
Natives, and he hasn't got a problem with that. He said his only
problem is with designating a race or a family history as being the
only people that would be eligible.
Number 493
CO-CHAIRMAN HUDSON said, "This is an interesting thing. I've also
had a whole lot of wrestling with this concept of rural because I
think that it's pretty nebulous and it could apply unequally in
different circumstances. And your suggestion that we go to
something like a subsistence dependent area or local or something
like that where there is few job opportunities -- from my traveling
around the state of Alaska, and I've visited many, many villages
and larger communities in Alaska. There are hundreds and maybe
even thousands of Alaskans who are stuck in a region because they
don't have the wherewithal to, say, pick up and leave. And a lot
of people who come to Alaska come from California or Idaho, like
myself or something like that, and when time gets tough and you
lose your job they can, you know, often fall back, you know, to
where they came from and look for their family dependents. But
many people who were born and raised in the Interior of Alaska and
in the small villages, really that's where their network is, and as
they've gotten older there just isn't any place else for them to
go, nor could they survive any other place except under some sort
of welfare scenario. So, I think that there is, with some good
wordsmithing, some sincere understanding between Native/non-Native
-- and non-Natives who have been born and raised into rural Alaska,
without using the word `rural,' are trying to find some better
description, maybe one of the solutions that we have to really work
harder on here because I haven't heard it yet. I appreciate you're
leading us into that way of thinking because I think that's
necessary."
Number 513
MR. MUENCH said he hopes that he didn't give the impression that he
was suggesting that people should leave these remote areas. He
said he believes people do have a right to live and to remain
living in those areas, and to do it by means of subsistence type
activities for a large part of their survival. He said he thinks
that is the need for a subsistence amendment to the constitution.
Number 548
CO-CHAIRMAN HUDSON said, "When we talk about need we readily find
that some folks, including John and some of the positions taken by
AFN, is that they want no reference to need. But need doesn't
necessarily have to mean - it doesn't have to mean `means.' It may
mean, you know, desire to live in a certain area that has no other
major job opportunities or economic opportunities for these people.
So, I think that, you know, we've got to be careful here that we
are - we throw away the opportunity to expand the search for the
right definitions and it may not be need, but it may be need. Do
you hear what I'm saying? It depends on whose terminology you're
using."
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN said, "Eric, you heard K. A. indicate that
there is a need perhaps that if we could get some sort of a
moratorium that we're really now focusing, a opposed to the prior
18 or whatever -- some as many as 30 years that we've kind of just
ignored this problem -- and maybe because it hasn't been a major
problem. A lot of people have testified today that `well, what's
the problem? Things are going alright.' Do you feel that you
share her concern or her feeling that if we were somehow granted a
moratorium that we could reconcile the various differences that
we've heard today?"
MR. MUENCH said he has been concerned over the last few years that
we, as Alaskans, have not done more to solve the problem. He said
he thinks that the Governor's task force has gone a long ways
towards starting that process. He said getting the federal
government in here will create kayos and disaster all around. Mr.
Muench said he thinks a moratorium would be in order if our
Congressional delegation can swing it. He said he thinks we could
then solve that problem. Mr. Muench stated he does believe that a
majority of Alaskans would support a solution that they saw as fair
and one that would apply only where needed. He thinks there
probably wouldn't be support for the type of subsistence management
that we have seen under the federal ANILCA administration.
Number 550
REPRESENTATIVE NICHOLIA said, "I would hope that we would not give
the public the understanding that there will be a moratorium,
especially since we had Senator Stevens tell us right to our face
that there would be no moratorium and that he wants to see a
solution acted on by the legislature, and that he said when he
spoke to us in our chambers during our session that there would be
no moratorium."
Number 560
GEORGE GARDNER, Member, Ketchikan Indian Corporation, came before
the committee to give his testimony. He informed the members he is
on the IRA Council which consists of 3,700 members, and he is also
the chairman of the Subsistence Committee. He told the committee
members he was born and raised in Craig and is 66 years old. He
stated he lived on subsistence in his early days and still does
today. At the IRA Council meeting on August 27, 1997, they gave
the Subsistence Committee authorization to draft a position
statement which he is submitting at this time. He continued to
read the position statement into the record:
"The Ketchikan Indian Corporation Tribal Council, at its regular
meeting, August 27, 1997, unanimously opposed Governor Knowles'
subsistence task force recommendations. The following is the
support document and reference and rational: 1) Subsistence is a
priority system only when resources are depleted to the point where
the priority system `kicks in.' 2) Subsistence users historically
use approximately 1 percent of the resources. 3) Subsistence users
historically take only what they can use. 4) Alaskan Natives has
historically depended on subsistence resources for a means of
culture, economics and survival. 5) ANILCA, Title VIII, attempts to
recognize that Alaska historically depends on subsistence. 6) The
state of Alaska has historically tried to take away subsistence
from the Alaska Natives. 7) Alaska Natives have historically been
challenged to give up more and more subsistence to the point where
they/we can give up no more! 8) Governor Knowles' subsistence task
force is yet one more attempt to take away subsistence from Alaska
Natives.
"The Ketchikan Indian Corporation Tribal Council strongly supports
the state of Alaska Constitutional amendments to comply with ANILCA
Title VIII and absolutely no amendment to ANILCA."
MR. GARDNER said he would like to adopt the testimony of John
Borbridge's testimony of September 12, and noted the council also
endorses that adoption.
Number 592
CO-CHAIRMAN HUDSON indicated the committee has heard from everybody
that signed up to testify. He said the committee would continue to
take testimony from people who are on-line after lunch.
The House Resources Committee recessed at 12:20 p.m.
TAPE 97-62, SIDE A
Number 001
CO-CHAIRMAN HUDSON called the House Resources Committee meeting
back to order at 1:40 p.m.
Number 027
LOREN CROXTON testified via teleconference from Petersburg. Mr.
Croxton informed the committee members that he has lived in Alaska
for about 39 years and in Petersburg since 1980. He indicated he'd
been from the North Slope all the way to Ketchikan. Mr. Croxton
said he thinks there is no question that we find an acceptable
solution to the issue of subsistence. By bowing to the high-handed
and, as he believes, the illegal action of the federal government
in usurping
our state right to manage our own fish and game resources, a right
granted to us by the statehood compact, is wrong. He said he
thinks it is ridicules that anyone would seriously consider
amending our constitution when legal actions against this and other
provisions of ANILCA are still pending in the courts. Our time,
efforts and money could be better expended doing everything within
our power to expedite these issues through the courts. Mr. Croxton
said there must be something the legislature and Administration can
do to hurry these issues along. He said he would strongly
recommend that amending the constitution be considered only as a
last resort. It should be seriously considered only after all
other avenues have been exhausted.
MR. CROXTON referred to a September 2, 1997, letter written by
Representative Beverly Masek to the editor of the Anchorage Daily
News. He said it puts the issue of subsistence in a much better
perspective than he ever could. Mr. Croxton quoted from the
letter, "Growing up in Anvik, my family truly depended on wildlife
resources for our daily subsistence. Many villages are still
living under similar conditions today. I can't think of anyone
I've spoken to who is opposed to these villagers [having] the
opportunity to feed themselves and their families. Therein lies
the true solution to the problem surrounding subsistence in Alaska
today. Working the equal rights provision out of our constitution,
providing for a permanent privileged class, goes against everything
America stands for. Alaskans deserve a solution based on the
principle that all people be treated equal."
MR. CROXTON informed the committee the Representative Masek further
wrote, "I have great doubts that the proposal, as written, would
truly return management to the state without unwanted federal
interference." He urged committee members to read the letter, as
he believes Representative Masek has an insight to this issue that
most Alaskans would agree with. He stated he further believes that
the Supreme Court would support these views. There are really only
three courses of action. One is to amend the constitution. Mr.
Croxton said at every opportunity, especially at election time, our
Congressional delegation reminds us of how much power they have in
Washington, D.C., but on this issue they are reluctant to say
anything. He stated there is only one other alternative and that
is to go through the courts. Mr. Croxton said a state can file
directly into the U.S. Supreme Court, bypassing the lower court
system. He stated he believes that is the best course of action
that Alaska can take.
Number 072
CO-CHAIRMAN HUDSON said, "I understand your views on the
constitution, but the thing that I feel really strong about and
concerned about is the need to avoid a federal and multi-layered
management scheme. What's your views on that?"
MR. CROXTON indicated he agrees with Co-Chairman Hudson 100
percent. He explained he was in Alaska just prior to statehood,
and that was when the federal government managed all of our
fisheries. The last year under the federal government, we
harvested about 23 million fish. Under state management, we are
now harvesting something in the neighborhood of 200 million. He
indicated the federal government has bungled just about every
management program they have ever stuck their fingers in. He said
he is saying that even though he did work for the federal
government at one time. Mr. Croxton said he believes we should do
everything we can to get total state management back from the
federal government.
Number 125
CO-CHAIRMAN HUDSON said the committee is searching for good minds
seeking solutions that return state management and takes care of
those people who have a real need. He indicated when the committee
was in Bethel, they heard from people who don't have jobs, don't a
cash income or there are limited places to buy from and they depend
upon the taking, processing, preserving and use of wild natural
resources, whether it is in the rivers or on the land. Co-Chairman
Hudson said he believes Mr. Croxton is right in that most Alaskans
want to make certain that they have what they need and that the
state take over this management. He indicated the committee
members would welcome any ideas in writing.
MR. CROXTON explained that in about 1986, the legislature did pass
a subsistence statute which he thinks is fair. He said he believes
it is very close to what everybody could agree on, but the only
problem is that it doesn't comply with ANILCA. It defines
"subsistence" as sustenance. It would be applied very selectively
to those individuals who truly needed it. It set up another
category of personal use for the rest of use who traditionally use
the resources. It would take of those people who truly need the
resource. He noted he would send the committee more information.
Number 203
WALT SHERIDAN testified via teleconference from Juneau. He noted
he is a board member of the Alaska Outdoor Council, but will be
testifying on his own behalf. He said in his view there are two
basic elements to the subsistence question. One element is
economics, and it is about quantity. One element is
cultural/traditional, and it is about value. Any of us who have
had the privilege of traveling to rural areas of Alaska know that
there are isolated villages where subsistence is clearly the
economic driver of the communities economy. In these situations
with few jobs and limited access to the cash economy, quantity of
subsistence resources is important. Mr. Sheridan said in these
limited situations, he supports an individual preference in times
of scarcity.
MR. SHERIDAN referred to the second element of subsistence,
`cultural/traditional,' and said cultural/traditional is not about
quantity. It is about value. As his Alaskan Native friends have
so eloquently stated, "The cultural/traditional aspect of
subsistence is about passing the values of respect for the land and
its creatures on to the next generation." These important values,
however, are not the sole property of any particular racial or
ethnic group, nor do these values have any relationship to whether
you are rural or urban Alaskans. He said he too shares these
values as he learned them from his grandfather, grandmother and
other family members. Mr. Sheridan stated he is also pleased to
say he was able to pass these values on to his children and he
looks forward to the opportunity of doing the same with his
grandchildren. The harvesting of fish and game and other renewable
resources is an important part of teaching the values of respect
for the land and its resources. Preferential access to those
resources, however, is not required. (Indisc.) what is required is
reasonable access to resources and a personal commitment to passing
the values on to future generations.
MR. SHERIDAN said he would talk about the role of Native-owned
lands in this debate. The Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act
conveyed some forty million acres of land to the Alaska Natives.
There were two principle purposes for these conveyances. One was
to provide Alaskan Natives with a resource base in economic
development. The other was in recognition of subsistence needs of
Alaskan Natives. He stated that forty million acres is a lot of
land; it is over sixty-two thousand square miles. On ANCSA land,
Alaska Natives can grant, and in many cases are granting, exclusive
use of these lands to their members, as appropriate. Subsistence
is one of the principal purposes for the conveyance. However, it
is also appropriate to recognize the role these lands play in
helping to resolve the current subsistence dilemma. Mr. Sheridan
said he thinks that is an element that has not so far entered into
the discussions and debate. He thanked the committee for the
opportunity to testify.
Number 255
HELEN DRURY was next to testify via teleconference from Sitka. She
stated she is a retired nutritionist from the Indian Health
Service. She informed the committee members she worked at the Mt.
Edgecumbe Native Hospital as a community nutritionist for ten
years, from 1975 to 1985. Ms. Drury indicated she currently
volunteers her help to the chief dietitian at the Mt. Edgecumbe
Hospital. She said a nutrient analysis done while she was working,
an analysis of 20 commonly used Native foods, showed the foods to
be very nutritious. When the Natives eat these foods, it is not
merely a way to satisfy hunger. It also has religious, spiritual
and cultural significance, which White people have a hard time
understanding. Elders who have used a diet largely of Native foods
seem to live longer and more vigorously.
MS. DRURY said she sometimes hears criticisms these days of the
large amounts of money spent by the Indian Health Service on health
problems among the Natives. This funding is spent because the
people have such a difficult time getting many of their foods these
days. She noted she has heard repeatedly, during the years she was
working, how White people would come in and virtually wipe a beach
clean of some of the foods that they depended on for their everyday
foods.
MS. DRURY explained that today, with severe cutbacks by Congress
and the legislature, small communities will be severely hurt in
that their local food usage must be limited. Food brought in by
ferry, barge or air is mighty expensive, especially when it's done
as a second delivery service from cities such as Juneau, Sitka and
other towns. Their cost of electricity is exorbitant.
MS. DRURY said she would remind legislators and others that from
the day the first White person arrived on the shores of North
America, we have literally taken over the food supply of every
Indian tribe across the continent. How self-righteous we are when
we criticize the human rights records of other countries. Let's
improve our own records. This could be one time when we do the
right thing. She stated Natives, especially in rural areas, are
entitled to their own local wild food. Let's not make what is
clearly an aboriginal right just another handout from the White
man.
Number 300
REPRESENTATIVE DYSON said, "I'm not familiar with any examples here
in Alaska where - particularly in the non-Southeastern part - where
the wild food supply has been wiped out for the aboriginal people.
Can you help me?"
MS. DRURY indicated she first heard this in Metlakatla. She
explained that many years ago, an elderly lady was telling her
about the large numbers of people that came in with the U.S. Coast
Guard, taking so many of their things. Ms. Drury said maybe she
got carried away by saying "wiped out," but they were severely
impacted. She said in Hydaburg, you'll hear a story about how
divers have wiped out abalone. She said she remembers hearing
stories from people in other villages talking about the fact that
such large amounts were being taken by White people.
Number 318
DONALD MacDONALD testified from Pelican via teleconference. He
said he has heard a lot of comments. He said he has lived in
Alaska all of his life and his family has been here for about five
generations. Mr. MacDonald informed the committee he was formally
a federal fish and wildlife agent during the territorial days, so
he has had some experience with the federal enforcement of fish and
wildlife and other laws. He stated at that time, he can't recall
a single case where they ever restricted anybody on the subsistence
issue. Their main focus was on fisheries and, to some extent, on
hunting. As far as other subsistence elements or concerns, such as
berry picking, harvesting of kelp and herring eggs and other
things, there was no absolutely no enforcement applied there
whatsoever that he can recall.
MR. MacDONALD said the Natives have the Alaska Native Claims
Settlement Act, which was supposed to lay to rest many of these
issues, and yet they are claiming additional privileges on
subsistence over and above what they've already been granted. That
seems to be the basis of a lot of the dissension. Mr. MacDonald
said he can appreciate the Natives in Interior Alaska having to
rely more heavily on subsistence gathering, hunting and fishing
than people do in Southeast Alaska. He said he doesn't see where
they have ever been restricted in that regard, to the extent that
the harvesting, under existing laws, hasn't provided them with the
subsistence they need. Mr. MacDonald informed committee members
that under federal law, fish traps and other things were legal. He
questioned whether those kinds of things are still legal. Are we
going to see the return of fish traps and other federal laws that
existed in the past? Mr. MacDonald questioned what the federal
laws are that will be enforced as of October 1, and who will
enforce them.
Number 377
PAT GARDNER testified via teleconference from Craig. He informed
the committee he was born in a territorial hospital in 1938. He
has seen a lot of changes, good and bad. Mr. Gardner referred to
abalone and said if you don't have scuba diving equipment, you
can't get them anymore, as they are almost completely wiped out.
He said when he was growing up, he was raised on coho salmon. When
the coho trolling prices went up, the Native people were forced to
quit fishing cohos and go to sockeye salmon. He noted he currently
commercial fishes and goes out and gets his coho salmon, as he
doesn't like sockeye much. Mr. Gardner referred to subsistence
bartering and trading and said they just bartered and traded with
other Native groups as far as Seattle. Now just to deal with the
people or try to barter and trade with Canada is something else
when you deal with the government. He said he watched abalone
disappear, so he isn't that excited about the state of Alaska
taking over. Mr. Gardner referred to sea cucumbers and said he
doesn't think there has been any studies done, as the Alaska
legislature doesn't give the state departments enough money. The
federal government seems to have too much money, so maybe they can
run things better that the state of Alaska can. He again indicated
concern with what will happen to bartering and trading. Mr.
Gardner said there is nothing to lose by the federal government
taking over.
Number 407
CO-CHAIRMAN HUDSON said Mr. Gardner indicated there was bartering
and trading in the past. He asked Mr. Gardner what he did that
constituted bartering or trading.
MR. GARDNER said they used to trade with the Canadians, as they had
argillite and hooligan grease which the Native Alaskans like. He
indicated he is now paying $60 a quart for hooligan grease. Mr.
Gardner said they used to trade fish eggs or furs. He discussed
how he traded fish eggs with the Natives in Washington. Mr.
Gardner said there is a lot of paperwork to fill out if they want
to shoot a deer for a potluck or to pick up eagle feathers, and it
almost isn't worth it. He indicated he used to trade fish eggs on
kelp for hooligan with Canada, but now he has to buy it.
Number 445
TOM SKEEK, JR., testified via teleconference from Kake. He said he
has been listening to the testimony regarding the tribal and
customary uses of streams and land. He informed the committee that
earlier in the spring, he and his son were cited for snagging a
steelhead out of a stream. They ended up in court for three months
over one fish, and they didn't even get to take it home. They lost
the case and ended up paying a fine. Mr. Skeek said he lives a
subsistence lifestyle starting with clams, then seaweed, then to
herring eggs. From herring eggs to they go to sockeyes, then to
dog salmon and pink salmon. He said this goes on year-round and
not just during the spring and summer. One season feeds the other
season. He said he is unemployed and the situation he was brought
under in the spring set him back more than he was in the past. It
was also very time-consuming. Mr. Skeek said he would like to see
the government focus on tribal and customary uses, and he noted
that the tools are very important.
Number 474
MIKE A. JACKSON testified via teleconference from Kake. He
informed the committee members he is a trust officer for the
organized village of Kake and the IRA. Part of his job is to look
at customary and traditional gathering and the effects of resource
extraction on the customary and traditional users in Kake. Mr.
Jackson said Mr. Skeek spoke of a problem that the people in rural
areas have with regard to the regulations pertaining to the
Department of Fish and Game. Sometimes they don't come to Kake,
and when they do see them, it is when the troopers are hiding
behind a bush to try to entrap people who are practicing their
customary and traditional gathering. He said, "Since the state is
having this kind of hearing, maybe from what I heard all morning
and part of this afternoon is that some of you that do not know
your local people that are here in the community of the great state
of Alaska, maybe you'll start understanding that there are tribes
in the state. We are completely different from European dwellers
that go down to your local Fred Meyer or your Safeway store to
gather your food. And we don't sport fish in any way or sport hunt
in any way, to put a trophy on our wall or to try to enjoy what the
bounty of Alaska is. You'll never see a trophy on the rural or
tribal member's wall. You might see a picture of a catch that we
have distributed among our family and our elders, we share it with
them, but you'll never see a trophy on the wall of rural people."
MR. JACKSON referred to testimony from a Ketchikan testifier that
stressed properly managed fish and game will not have the issue of
subsistence, unless there are some underlying issues such as the
Venetie or Katie John cases that are going before the Supreme
Court. He said he agrees with Mr. Borbridge's testimony in its
entirety. Mr. Jackson said he would also like to adopt Helen
Drury's testimony about the impacts of Western civilization on the
communities and traditional villages in Southeast Alaska.
MR. JACKSON said, "All the Native people that you heard probably in
the Bethel area -- because I know there even exists more of a
subsistence way of lifestyle or customary/traditional way than most
people do it here in the state. And our ancestors have taught us
that we are part of the land. We are not separate from it like
some scientists would like to convey upon - some the studies that
they do of us or the resources here in the state of Alaska. So,
whatever affects our resources like the habitat affects us directly
like the exportation and the parts of the U.S. Forest Service on
public lands -- the habitat for our deer and how it affects the
salmon."
MR. JACKSON said he believes the issue of co-management, such as
the sea otters, whales, walrus or the different types of seals, are
great examples of how co-management can work by involving the rural
villages and the Alaska aboriginal Natives.
MR. JACKSON referred to "what you people call `equal treatment for
all state residents'" and testimony that day. He indicated there
are taxes on the sales of accessories such as guns, ammunition,
fuel, rods, reels, and so forth, which go to the Department of Fish
and Game. He stated, "And if you look at it, all that tax goes to
the Division of Sport Fish and game, and nothing goes to the
Division of Subsistence. Is that equal treatment or is some other
issue at hand in that regard of the use of that kind of resources,
especially on these tight budgets that we're having handed down to
us? And I question: Is that equal treatment?"
MR. JACKSON continued, "Now there is another issue here, the debate
of customary/traditional use of fish and game fauna, and that is
usually referred to as subsistence. The Natives in studies that
have shown - I think Mr. Demmert has in Ketchikan there - that we
only take about 1 to 2 percent of the resources, where 95 percent
of the resource of salmon have been granted to limited entry, or
IFQs that have been granted for the halibut fishery, or the limited
entry crab fishery, or the limited entry on herring fishing. The
possible annihilation of the basic use of the food chain,
especially on herring, affects all the users of the ocean, land,
sea and air - especially the whales and especially the state of
Alaska, especially the people around Sitka and Craig and Klawock
that have the last existing great runs of aboriginal herring runs.
And also not to miss the limited entry of sable fish here in the
Chatham Strait fishery. Is that legal or equal treatment?"
MR. JACKSON continued, "Now, how does the state and federal
government give priorities to larger towns here in the communities
of Southeast Alaska of hydroelectric power, that gives them cheaper
power to create jobs and process resources to the finished export
product, whereas the communities have to beg for electrical
subsidies from the state that will be disappearing within a year or
two? Where does the resources come from? It comes from the rural
areas that are affected by these resource extractions and so are
the most affected by it. So, what is there? Where is the equal
treatment? So, that answers my question on equal treatment. And
is there the state government and equal treatment -- does it sound
familiar to the old phrase of the term `forked tongue' that
Hollywood likes to promote?"
MR. JACKSON continued, "Now, if the state government does not
recognize tribes as the federal government does, is there any
question who Alaska aboriginal Natives would prefer to manage the
fish and game? Because we've worked very well underneath the
federal fish and wildlife to create a co-management for those
marine mammals, as I stated, and it works great. The federal
Advisory Subsistence Board and how it comes up with positive input
from the aboriginal Native people and the excellent results of
management of the different resources - that works great."
MR. JACKSON referred to there being someone who referenced Alaska
Native Land Claims lands that were big enough for people to subsist
on, and he said they did not just subsist on their 23,040 acres of
Kake tribal land. They subsist pretty much all over Admiralty
Island, Kuiu Island, Kupreanoff Island and the mainland. He said
that 23,040 acres really does not compare to where they usually do
their customary/traditional gathering. They still barter and trade
seaweed, dry fish, deer, seal grease and other things. Mr. Jackson
said the state would like to turn them into criminals when they
like to share those things with other people because they do not
meet the Food and Drug Administration processes. The Native
processes of the raw goods have been practiced for thousands of
years, and it never killed one of them.
MR. JACKSON stated that they are prosecuted by the state troopers,
who hide behind stumps to entrap people that are fishing their
customary/traditional use in the streams around Kake. Subsistence
is their spiritual, cultural and socioeconomic use of the resources
around them. It is a respect for all those resources. He thanked
Representatives Nicholia and Joule for keeping a balance of the
rural aspect of the hearing.
Number 576
SAMUEL JACKSON testified via teleconference from Kake. He noted he
is the president of the organized village of Kake which is a
federally recognized tribe and consists of over 600 members. Mr.
Jackson said he grew up in Kake and has lived there all of his
life. He comes from a subsistence background that has been passed
on to him from neighbors and relatives, some of whom are no longer
with us and can't speak on their own behalf. Mr. Jackson said they
don't like to use the word "subsistence," but that is what has been
given to them; therefore, they use that word.
MR. JACKSON said the basis of subsistence cannot depend on the
economics of a person. It needs to based on their inherent right
to the resources that they have hunted and gathered throughout
their lives and the last 10,000 years that their people have been
on the land. The customary and traditional usage also allows them
to have cultural and spiritual ties to the land. That is also one
aspect that is very important to them. The resources are harvested
yearly and they start at the beginning of the year and harvest
continually until they bring in the last clams before New Years.
He said, "We harvest those resources not individually, but we
harvest them also to give to others who cannot, because of their
conditions - economics - go out and harvest them themselves."
MR. JACKSON referred to a constitutional amendment to the state
constitution and said they feel a rural preference should remain.
They do not support any amendments to ANILCA. He referred to the
federal management takeover of October 1, and he said they have
worked with the federal government on co-management of certain
resources such as the sea otters and seals. That has worked for
the people. They do support co-management of those resources
because they want a voice when it comes to making management
decisions of things they have harvested for thousands of years.
Subsistence resources used by the rural residents of the state
amount to no more than 1 percent....
TAPE 97-62, SIDE B
Number 001
MR. JACKSON thanked the committee for listening to him.
Number 017
JOSEPHINE PAUL testified via teleconference from Kake. She
informed the committee members she has been in Kake for 76 years
and lives on subsistence. She indicated she has grandchildren.
Ms. Paul said if the government makes laws against gathering
subsistence food, she'll still go out and get her food. Ms. Paul
referred to the food that people brought up from "down South" and
said she can't eat it, can't tolerate it and can't live on it. She
said the issue of subsistence has been around for many years and it
makes her mad just to hear the word. Subsistence is their
livelihood, and that is what most of their children were raised on.
She indicated it is hard to live on Social Security, and the
government always wants to stop giving her the money they're
currently giving her, they're always threatening to take money away
from them. She asked that they just be able to live their lives in
peace. Ms. Paul mentioned that her father told her brother, when
he was a child, that you don't kill what you're not going to eat.
One day her brother shot a sea gull with a slingshot. Her father
made her bother skin and eat the sea gull. Ms. Paul said she hears
where people go out and shoot deer and other animals and leave
them. She said she is sure it isn't her people because they use
the whole deer, including the head, as they make head cheese with
it. She indicated she hates always being threatened regarding
subsistence food. Ms. Paul thanked the committee for listening to
her.
Number 116
KATHY HAWK was next to testify via teleconference from Kake. She
said she is a concerned Native parent and is also a former
subsistence surveyor for the village of Kake. Ms. Hawk stated, "I
think that using word `subsistence' has removed an emotional
responsibility on you, because every time we use the word
`subsistence,' it removes the thought that this is our traditional
culture that we live by. It's foods that help us to not only
survive by, but it helps us to understand who we are when we use
these Native-culture foods."
MS. HAWK continued, "I think that if we remove the term
`subsistence' and go with `tribal/cultural Native foods,' it helps
you to have an emotional responsibility that you are not going to
remove our culture from us totally. As a Native parent, I have to
be concerned that my children are going to be limited in the
future, not only my children now, but my grandchildren. I have to
be concerned that the community here -- the subsistence that you're
taking away from us our cultural foods - is going to be dissipated
throughout the generations. And I think that as a responsible
parent I need to speak up and say, `I am concerned.' Whether I
have a point of view that would be usable for you to help you to
understand our concerns as Native people or not, I still have to
speak up and say, `I'm still here, I still matter because I'm going
to speak up.'"
MS. HAWK referred to being the a former subsistence surveyor in her
community and said she had the opportunity to survey 75 different
households. When she was conducting the survey, a lot of the
people were afraid to tell her how much they had taken of the
cultural foods that they use, only because they were afraid they
were going to get in trouble for what they had taken. Ms. Hawk
explained to them that the information they gave her was highly
confidential and that the Department of Fish and Game wasn't going
to use the information she gathered against the people.
MS. HAWK said when she finally convinced many of the people that
the information wasn't going to be used against them, a lot of them
said they had taken two or three more fish than they should have
because they put up a little more for funerals, potlucks and for
people who aren't able to come to the village when the gathering
takes place and they want to share with them. There wasn't an
abuse of the cultural foods that are gathered. She said she didn't
see anyone who went out of their way to exploit the cultural foods
that are gathered. Ms. Hawk referred to the whole issue of
subsistence and suggested that members keep in mind that it is the
way they live and the way they are. It is more than important to
them that their children know that when they put this food in their
bodies. It is who they are. It's the way they were raised, and
it's the way they hope their grandchildren are raised.
Number 191
DENNIS WATSON, Mayor, City of Craig, testified via teleconference
from Craig. He informed the committee members there was a Craig
City Council meeting the previous night regarding subsistence. The
council has always been of the mind that the ability to hunt, fish,
collect berries and other things should be protected. He said they
have always been a supporter of subsistence, but they have watched
in recent years as this issue has grown more political and
emotional, and felt that people are losing sight of what this was
all about in the beginning. There is more of a political agenda
behind it now.
MR. WATSON said the council believes that subsistence is a good
thing, but they do not believe that encroachment of the federal
government and state regulation is a good thing. They would like
to see the issue resolved where the ability to hunt, fish and
collect berries, et cetera, should be protected in some way. Also,
the rights of the rest of the people in Alaska should be looked out
for. He said they hope some sort of middle ground is found, so
that we can get back to taking care of the other problems we have
around the state, which seem to be compounding as we speak. Mr.
Watson said he is hoping that we can eventually resolve this issue,
at least to the satisfaction of most people. He thanked the
committee for letting him speak.
Number 225
CO-CHAIRMAN HUDSON said he thinks even people who might normally be
termed on the extreme pro-equal rights aspects of the issue do want
the availability of subsistence foods and other resources to be
made available and very strongly do not want the federal government
encroached into the management or multiple management schemes,
particularly with our salmon and other migratory herds and stocks.
He said he totally agrees with Mr. Watson in that we have to solve
this as soon as possible and it is holding us away from really
resolving what our real future is. He stated he would hope Mr.
Watson, the city council and other people have had a chance to look
over the proposal from the Governor's task force. At least it is
a bold effort to try to document some of salient points - the three
separate fixes, the interconnecting networking between one and the
other, and the ultimate reliant on the public vote or the public
say as to whether or not they can accept one or more of these
elements. He asked Mr. Watson if his people has had an opportunity
to review the current draft of the Governor's task force
recommendations.
Number 257
MR. WATSON indicated they have received copies of the
recommendations. He referred to those recommendations, plus some
of the stances taken on both extreme sides of this issue, and said
he believes they can find good and fault in all of them. He said
he does hope that this does go to a vote of the people. Regardless
of the outcome of that, he believes our federal delegation has made
it fairly clear that they need this signal to decide where they're
going to go. Mr. Watson said he believes the state needs it.
There has been an awful lot of rhetoric on all sides of this and he
thinks the question needs to be put on the ballot. He indicated he
does find a lot of good things in some of the proposals. Mr.
Watson said having been involved in this issue for so long, maybe
he is cynical, and he is sorry to say that. He said he hopes that
the people who are working on the issue won't get cynical. Mr.
Watson urged the issue be put in front of the people.
Number 278
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN said, "We're embroiled in this concern about
1 or 2 percent of the total resource - we've heard various numbers,
and yet far far more of that goes through limited entry or the
permitting process to fisher people outside who are nonresidents.
Now we've already checked into the problem of restraint of trade if
we try and limit the harvesting to just in-state residents, but if
something like that -- since this is so emotional and since the
federal government has gotten so heavily involved in this, if there
were some way to eat into that nonresident take, which would
certainly provide far more than whatever, even in times of shortage
for the subsistence issue, do you think that there could be a
possible enlistment of the Native culture to help in this pursuit?
Number 296
MR. WATSON indicated that is a complicated question. He said
having been a commercial fisher for 25 years, he knows quite a bit
about this. He said he has often wondered that if there was a way,
in some way without being unfair to people that were already vested
into limited entry, that if as they get out, that there may be some
way that the state could recoup the ability to use that resource
and maybe spread it out a little bit more within the state. Mr.
Watson said it is very hypothetical, and he doesn't know how to go
about doing it without having all kinds of constitutional red
flags. He stated he would certainly like to look at some kind of
proposal that had something like that on it. We do watch an awful
lot of the resources go outside Alaska. There is an awful lot of
people who really aren't concerned with our state or what happens
here who are getting some of the larger benefits of our resources.
He said they would have so see something on paper to see if it
actually possible.
Number 316
MR. AMBROSE asked Mr. Watson if he had the chance to listen to all
the testimony that was given earlier in the day.
MR. WATSON said he didn't have that chance to listen to all of it.
MR. AMBROSE said he understands that the Craig city council did
discuss the issue the previous evening.
MR. WATSON said they actually had Dave Johnson from the Forest
Service in attendance. He noted Mr. Johnson is a part of the
federal Subsistence Board. Mr. Johnson explained where things are
at and how the Forest Service feels about some of the things going
on right now.
MR. AMBROSE said the reason he asked is it seems to him that the
first consensus that needs to be reached in this dialogue as a
state is a definition of "subsistence." He noted during lunch, he
found out that there are three different ideas at the table. If we
don't define what it is we're talking about, he doesn't know how a
solution can be reached. He asked Mr. Watson whether at the
meeting there were different understandings regarding the meaning
of subsistence.
Number 340
MR. WATSON said that is an issue that has come up more than once.
He stated that he doesn't have a good answer for the question. He
referred to a number of years ago when the issue of rural
preference was on the ballot; he'd supported the concept. He said
it is his feeling that what we were after then in no way matches up
to some people's perception of what we're after now, or what the
definition of "subsistence" now is. Mr. Watson stated he believes
it has become more political. Self-governments, sovereignty and
other things have spread their way into this issue, and he doesn't
believe they belong there. This is an issue of the people, and he
wishes the politics could be kept out of it. There is no simple
definition of "subsistence." He has heard several definitions and
agrees with very few of them.
Number 415
REPRESENTATIVE BEVERLY MASEK indicated she was on-line and would
like to ask Mr. Watson a few questions. She stated, "I got elected
in 1994, and I introduced several resolutions since then. And
hearing what you had to say about Congress waiting for the state to
decide, well, I put together HJR 33 in `94." She said in 1996
she'd reintroduced a different type of resolution, HJR 21, which is
currently in the House Rules Committee.
REPRESENTATIVE MASEK referred to the problems the state is
encountering and said the federal government is saying the state
has to take a stand. She referred to her resolution and the
different proposals that Senator Murkowski and Congressman Young
put together, and she said the state can't act single-handedly.
Part of her resolution says it is important to note that if
Congress acts favorably on HJR 21, the major issue of a rural
preference will remain in federal statutes, but in return, we have
to have state management.
REPRESENTATIVE MASEK said in trying to come up with a reasonable
agreement on the terms of "rural and customary/traditional," it
would bring the state back to defining those definitions. There
also would be some other changes in that if the federal government
can come in on public lands, what are "public lands?" She asked
whether they could exclude state and private lands and waters and
prohibit the preemption of state management in our fish and
wildlife on state and private waters and the repeal of the federal
court oversight provision of state subsistence management programs,
and get rid of the commercial sale of subsistence-taken resources.
She said those are just some of the minor changes we'd like to see,
but as Co-Chairman Hudson said, they want to hear from the people.
REPRESENTATIVE MASEK said the state and federal governments have to
work together. She referred to the Governor's proposal and said
there are so many things in there that will not give true state
management back to our state. It will create dual management over
our fish and wildlife, with the feds and the state clashing. She
said she doesn't know whether the state will be working with the
federal government on regulations and who will have the final say.
Currently, at the federal level, there is really no concrete set of
statutes and rules; they make them up as they go along.
Representative Masek asked Mr. Watson whether he had any comments
or whether he'd had a chance to see HJR 21.
Number 431
MR. WATSON said he appreciates Representative Masek's efforts to
keep this issue alive. He said there are some things he would like
to see in the state's hands. Mr. Watson said he wishes there was
more well-rounded support for getting more control back into the
state's hands. He noted he is opposed to co-management and can see
nothing but a big dog fight. Mr. Watson indicated he did find some
fault in the Governor's recommendations. He said, "If some of the
legislation that you're working on, you know, if you could get more
well-rounded support and get people that really want to get the
state back involved in it and figure that it is not a danger to
them, I am fully in support of that."
Number 438
REPRESENTATIVE MASEK indicated that is the intent. The state
should have (indisc.) authority over it. We have to be able to
have that provision if there is going to be a constitutional
amendment to the Alaska Constitution.
MR. WATSON said there are many things that need to be included if
we consider a constitutional amendment. He explained, "One of them
is that the feds are out first, that they have to walk away because
I always have this gut feeling that when they get a hold of
something, they never let go. And they've got to let go before we
do something that we potentially can't get out of.
Number 450
REPRESENTATIVE MASEK said people have to compromise, and it seems
to her that both sides are not really willing to do a lot. She
said HJR 21 would require somewhere along the line to have a
constitutional amendment only if the provisions were changed in
ANILCA that would give the state back true management of our fish
and wildlife.
MR. WATSON said that is the course he would like to see. How we
will find a middle ground is a good question.
REPRESENTATIVE MASEK said when ANILCA was introduced, debated and
passed in the late 1970s and early 1980s, that is where the problem
really started. Anytime you want to start working on something,
you've got to go back to where it started and work towards a
solution. Currently, our Congressional delegation is starting to
talk about it and bring forward different proposals, but it doesn't
go far enough as far as our state is concerned.
Number 459
PATRICK MILLS was next to testify via teleconference from Hoonah.
He informed the committee members he has been a full-time
subsistence user all of his life, except for 1966 through 1968 when
he was in the U.S. Army. He said he doesn't think ANILCA should be
amended unless they include giving Glacier Bay back to the Hoonah
people. Mr. Mills said they want Glacier Bay back, as it is their
home country. He stated that his father was born at Dundas Bay,
which is a part of Glacier Bay. His mother was born at Excursion
Inlet, which is also a part of Glacier Bay. He said their culture
has been handed down for generations.
MR. MILLS pointed out that when his people moved from Glacier Bay,
there were no trees in Hoonah. He said he wants to go back to
Glacier Bay because there are no trees in Hoonah. The deer hunting
and rain forests are being decimated. Mr. Mills said he doesn't
feel comfortable about amending ANILCA for a rural preference
because of the fault of ANCSA. It was ANCSA that took away their
hunting and fishing rights. He said they did not authorize a bill
of sale for their tribal rights; Congress did. He stated that 226
tribes divided by 500 million amounts to almost nothing. Divide
that by 30 or 40 years and it is even less. Mr. Mills said the
Native people weren't paying attention when ANCSA happened. They
are paying attention because ANILCA is being amended. On one hand,
ANCSA took away their hunting and fishing rights. On the other
hand, ANILCA gave it back: customary/traditional.
MR. MILLS stated that they favor federal management because the
state has harsh, barbed wire-like enforcement over the gathering
for subsistence. He said, "We cannot afford to put any more Native
people in jail. The non-Native people can fit in the Native
people's way of life. Unfortunately, our Native people cannot fit
in the urban way of life, as you can tell by the amount of Native
prisoners in the state of Alaska's jails. I hear people say things
like there is no exclusive user group. Limited entry is an
exclusive user group, whether you like it or not. We can even buy
it, for crying out loud; that's if you have the money. Our Native
people in the villages have no money. We don't even have land to
sit on to call our own. It's been given to the state-chartered
corporations, and when these state-charted corporations say, `no,
I'm (indisc.) subsistence hunting in January on our land,' there is
no hunting, and that's the way it's been for a long time."
MR. MILLS said because of bills like Representative Masek's bill,
it causes the Native people to mistrust the state. He noted that
they don't think Representative Masek's is representative of all
the people. He said, "For you to totally attack our Native people
with a bill, just totally do away - do away - do away with ANILCA,
this is a Congressional law such as ANCSA. I would say if you're
going to amend something, amend ANCSA. We did not get our full
monetary value from the price they set on our hunting, fishing and
game."
MR. MILLS said for many years they have gathered subsistence food
for their traditional/customary uses and potlatches. Even though
the city of Hoonah had an anti-potlatch ordinance until 1974, they
carried on their traditions and culture. He informed the committee
they pass on their Tlingit names through their families. Mr. Mills
said he doesn't like to take welfare checks from the government,
but that is what the state has reduced them to. He referred to a
sockeye river at Excursion Inlet and said it is overrun by cannery
workers when they have time off. People from all over Southeast go
there because there are only one or two designated areas for them
to gather sockeye. For a long time, they have gathered subsistence
food because they don't have any jobs.
MR. MILLS said some people think the subsistence way of life is
easy, but it isn't. You have to catch it, take it home, cut it up,
clean it, put it in jars, et cetera. Mr. Mills said they barter
their labor for hooligan oil in Klukwan. He urged that ANCSA be
amended to give them back their 50 percent of the salmon, fish and
game. If ANCSA were to be amended, he would guarantee that 50
percent of the fishing permits would remain in Alaska.
MR. MILLS discussed the importance of subsistence gathering in the
villages, as there aren't jobs. He stated that they want tribal
representation from the local areas and a say-so in what happens to
their traditional and customary usage.
MR. MILLS referred to Glacier Bay and said it comprises over half
of the Hoonah area in subsistence. When ANILCA came along and
guaranteed subsistence, Glacier Bay was taken away in the same
breath. He said what the state represents sometimes is not very
good, as we end up with special interest groups such as the Haines
Borough. Mr. Mills said Excursion is his traditional and customary
usage area, but the Haines Borough doesn't know that. He informed
committee members about the subsistence foods he eats.
TAPE 97-63, SIDE A
Number 020
MR. MILLS referred to the Treaty of Cession and explained that it
says, "The uncivilized tribes will be subject to laws of that
country." People then turned around and said that we didn't have
tribes in Alaska. We had uncivilized tribes. Mr. Mills said the
truth is that there were absolutely no civilized tribes in the
entire Americas; they were all the same - uncivilized. He said,
"When the time came for us to go to ANCSA and ANILCA, we were not
represented as a tribe. We feel a little bit - little bit
breathable now that the President had granted us tribal status. We
feel that we could breathe and we're not so suffocated anymore.
Yes, I am denied Glacier Bay - my Hoonah people - but we still
would rather have federal management because we feel that this
federal management will talk to us. The state of Alaska will not
talk to us. They'll send us a bill like Beverly's." Mr. Mills
discussed his family history relating to his brothers' military
service. He thanked the committee members for allowing him to
testify.
MR. MILLS referred to people of Alaska talking about equal rights
and said they're protected by the state and federal constitutions.
Federal guarantees for Natives are almost nonexistent and even less
with the state. He thanked the committee for listening to him.
Number 162
OWEN JAMES testified via teleconference from Hoonah. Mr. James
informed the committee members he is originally from Kake and moved
to Hoonah 19 years ago. He explained he saw a gentleman get busted
by the Department of Fish and Game for trying to keep his family
fed, as he had no food in his house. Mr. James said he felt bad
for this man because he went out and got some halibut. He wanted
to get some rice and other food for his home and didn't have the
money. Somebody offered to give him money for some of the halibut;
so, he gave them some halibut and he received money to buy some
rice and a few other things. This man got busted for it and
received five years of probation. He wasn't allowed to hunt and
fish and couldn't own any weapons. He also wasn't allowed to be a
crew member on seining or halibut boats. Mr. James said he was
glad he was there, as he helped the man out with food for his
family.
MR. JAMES said he was raised to help people that are having
problems. He was also raised to treat the elders with respect.
Whenever people are hungry for food, he would go get it for them:
deer, seal, clams, cockles. He said to go out and do that now, he
has to fill out a lot paperwork. Mr. James said many of the elders
want two or three deer, and if he goes and gets them, he is in a
bind for his family. The game warden is always on him as he goes
out and hunts for the elders. He continued to explain a situation
where somebody went to hunt for an uncle and got in trouble for not
filling out the paperwork. He thanked the committee members for
allowing him to testify.
Number 253
GEORGE PAUL testified via teleconference from Sitka. He said there
are two questions he can't find the answers to. Mr. Paul said,
"The fact that when we're talking about the federal law coming in,
I don't have a document that lists the federal laws that are going
to take effect on October 2. And also, I haven't seen a map
outline that shows which areas will be affected and how they will
be affected. As far as the task force findings, there are a couple
of positive things I found in it. The definition I believe is very
positive because it puts in black and white, or in this case white
and brown, exactly what the definitions are for `priority and
customary tradition' and `customary and trade.' That part I like.
I like the idea about the regional committees to sit and determine
year to year, and seasonal, and what fish, and what exactly we're
talking about will be. The things I don't agree with are the
guarantee where it says `reasonable,' because I currently serve on
the Sitka Tribe of Alaska, and a lot of our tribal citizens have
come in - what has been alluded to throughout the day because they
become criminals going out and trying to catch their fish. But
what our legal staff has stated to them is, well, in the areas
where the law is -- when you go to a specific law, it says `may' or
`may not,' and it doesn't state emphatically that you have the
right or you will. So, when the state offers us a reasonable
opportunity, then it isn't giving us the guarantee that the federal
law does."
MR. PAUL said he can't support the task force findings. He
referred to the paragraph where it says Native sovereignty and said
nowhere does the document imply that it gives Native tribes
sovereignty or recognizes Native tribes. He stated, "Personally,
I feel that the `back door rider,' so to speak, into this --
because they say they're offering us something, but in essence
we're doing ourselves more harm. The other thing I disagree with
in this document is the paragraph where it says `subsistence cannot
be a legal defense.' I think that is another rider that is trying
to be snuck in there."
MR. PAUL said he hears the state saying that ANCSA, in 1971, gave
Natives their final right. He said his personal opinion on ANCSA
is that it was a bill of genocide because it provided for a
termination date. In 1972, it was good for him because he got a
dividend check, but it was bad for the baby that was born at Mt.
Edgecumbe Hospital because that person wasn't allowed to be a
member of the corporation. He said there are a lot of bad
(indisc.) about ANCSA too. Each legislator is elected on one
person, one vote, and ANCSA offers bribes for voting. There are so
many things in ANCSA that goes against the Constitution of the
United States. As a veteran, he disagrees with that type of
governmental policy.
MR. PAUL said, "So, I guess in conclusion, the federal government
recognizes that each of you should have the right to go out and
trophy hunt. Each of you has the right to go out and play with
your fish - catch it and release it. But at times when the
resources and the food isn't there, then they respect and they
realize that we, as Indian and Native people, need that for our
food; so, at those times, then, it demands that trophy hunting and
going out and playing with your fish -- and that has to stop
because we need it as our food source. And that will be my last
point is the motivation; I think each of us should ask the
motivation of why we are fighting. Are we fighting for this right
to go out as a recreation? Or are we fighting for this right to
put food on our table?"
Number 330
MATTHEW J. FRED, SR., Head Cultural Leader of Admiralty Island,
Angoon, testified via teleconference from Angoon. He said he would
like to start off by saying, "How long have we administered our
subsistence resources?" He said artifacts have been found
verifying that they have been doing this for 10,000 years. A
fishing trap stake was found in Angoon which dates back 3,500
years. Subsistence is their inherent right. He explained that
oral history tells that it was during the preparation for the great
flood, during Noah's time, that they took food preservation
seriously because of the hardship they endured during the ice age
when they had to march over the glaciers. He said they have
survived both eras.
MR. FRED said the whole animal is used when taking any species of
animal for subsistence purposes. Nothing is wasted. He stated the
urban communities are the only ones that benefited by logging. The
rural communities suffered because clear-cutting destroyed their
subsistence resources, habitat. Mr. Fred explained fish traps are
the reason why we now have hatcheries that produce poor salmon.
The poor salmon cannot be preserved or even salted; it will not
hold. Herring is gone from Favorite Bay because the Department of
Fish and Game gave the "go" sign to harvest herring. The boats
went there and fished out all the herring. Mr. Fred said their
winter stocks have been completely destroyed.
MR. FRED said that from the time of creation, they have taken care
of their subsistence resources. In traditional dances, they do a
"House of salmon migration" dance which goes back to the book of
Genesis in the Holy Bible. Mr. Fred explained that Angoon has
never been defeated nor conquered, and they are a sovereign nation.
He said ANILCA should be left alone. The fact that Favorite Bay
doesn't have any more winter stocks shows the kind of management
that they have had with the state.
Number 400
BILL AUGER came before the committee to give his testimony. He
informed the committee that he has read the Governor's proposal.
It seems that everybody thinks they're going to lose a lot, and
everything that they're afraid of losing is in the Governor's
proposal. He indicated that he feels that Alaska would be much
better off with the state running our fish and game. He said he
doesn't see how anybody would want the federal government to come
in and run our resources. Mr. Auger said he there are a few things
in the Governor's plan that needs strong definitions, such as
barter and trade. He referred to the plan and said if he were a
subsistence user, he would be concerned that they don't seem to
hold you in a region. Unless there is a real decline in the
resource, a subsistence user in Southeast can go to the Yukon-
Kuskokwim delta and subsistence hunt or fish unless there is a
decline in the resource; then they start eliminating users by area,
region, dependents, et cetera. He said maybe that should be
addressed and defined.
CO-CHAIRMAN HUDSON said that is a good point and it is important
that we define to make certain that we are not constantly referring
back to the court to define on our behalf.
Number 456
TERESA GARLAND, Executive Director, Ketchikan Chamber of Commerce,
came forward to testify. She noted she is representing the
Ketchikan business community and the Ketchikan Chamber of Commerce.
She said the Ketchikan Chamber of Commerce would like to commend
the efforts of the legislature, Governor's office and Alaska's
Congressional delegation for taking the initiative to address
everyone and for allowing Alaskans to speak on this issue. The
Ketchikan Chamber of Commerce in no way supports federal
intervention and management of our fishery resources. The history
in management of Alaska fisheries shows that there is a detrimental
string of mismanagement actions which almost fully devastated the
fishery resource in Southeast Alaska.
MS. GARLAND said she would like to present four key points. The
commercial and sport fishing industry represents a very significant
component in Ketchikan. She said they figure it is about 20
percent of the basic industry jobs, with an estimated annual
payroll of $22.5 million. Ms. Garland said they feel the state of
Alaska is really better situated and qualified to manage and
regulate the state Department of Fish and Game. The chamber
supports the Alaska Congressional delegation, the legislature and
the Governor in taking immediate and positive action to prevent and
reverse the federal takeover of fish and game management in the
state and return it to effective management. The Ketchikan Chamber
of Commerce encourages all Alaskans to work together as a unified
group to accomplish the common goal of preventing the federal
takeover and intervention of fisheries management and returning all
game management to the state of Alaska.
Number 486
ROBERTA SHIELDS was next to testify before the committee. She
stated she is opposed to any changes in the state constitution
giving rural and Native carte blanche priority over hunting and
fishing rights. Ms. Shields stated she feels Title VIII of ANILCA
violates our state constitution and the Tenth Amendment of the U.S.
Constitution. She said ANILCA must be changed to protect the
rights and freedoms of all Alaskans. Ms. Shields said it seems to
her it is deceptive and hypocritical for certain people in the
rural areas to claim customary and traditional use when in fact
they do not live at all by the standards of their heritage. These
people are obviously dependent on their nonrural neighbors and
cousins for nearly 100 percent of their tools, supplies and
equipment - that is clothing, motorized conveyances, fuel and
electronic communication. Ms. Shields said she has lived
subsistence as she has lived in the bush, her family are farmers
and ranchers. She has always had wild wheat, game and berries to
put on the table. She stated she feels the rural bush dwellers are
in need of the manufactured goods of a civilized society as much as
the urban dwellers have need of and share the love of the land.
Government has created an artificial division between the urban and
rural dwellers of our state. Maybe it is easier for the government
to manage people than to manage their game. She said she certainly
doesn't want the federal government managing and she doesn't want
the state to change the Alaska Constitution to comply with these
federal mandates.
Number 511
REPRESENTATIVE NICHOLIA asked Ms. Shields where in the bush she has
lived.
MS. SHIELDS stated she has lived in Hyder, and out of Kodiak at St.
Peters and St. George.
REPRESENTATIVE NICHOLIA asked how long she lived in the bush.
MS. SHIELDS indicated she lived in Hyder for over ten years and she
worked out of Kodiak about six months.
REPRESENTATIVE NICHOLIA asked how long she lived in St. George.
MS. SHIELDS responded she worked off and on at construction sites
for about two years. She indicated she now resides in Ketchikan.
REPRESENTATIVE NICHOLIA indicated she would ask a hypothetical
question. She said, "Say that you're a fisherman and you fish to
put fish on your table for your family to feed on. It's something
that you practiced for a long time and if you don't have it, you
crave for it. Now say there is a shortage of that fish that you
depend on every season, whenever it's available. And there is a
shortage and then you get an influx of people from say Anchorage
coming down here to fish that same fishery. In times of shortage,
would you appreciate those people coming in when you're trying to
get that fish yourself?"
MS. SHIELDS responded, "Are there times of shortage? That's my big
question."
REPRESENTATIVE NICHOLIA explained she is just asking a hypothetical
question.
MS. SHIELDS said, "Well I'll give you a hypothetical answer. When
it happens -- like I said, my family farmed and ranched and we
always set aside for the -- whenever you're fruit trees were
bearing, for instance, you canned up extra for the years that they
weren't bearing. The frost might kill the fruit three years in a
row, but you had enough canned up and ready to cover for those
shortages. People have to plan ahead. If they don't, they're non
compos mentis."
Number 538
EDWARD GAMBLE, SR., testified via teleconference from Angoon. He
informed the committee members he was born and raised in Angoon.
Mr. Gamble said from the date of birth until he reached high school
age he was raised traditionally in the form of gathering the
resources and living from those things. There were several events
that occurred with the governments up until this point. One was
the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act which brought into being
the word "subsistence." That word had no definition and it only
applied to whatever they might be doing. Nobody cared about the
customary and traditional aspect of that. Mr. Gamble said ANILCA
was adopted to amend ANCSA so that the concerns of those people
that do customary and traditional use could be addressed and heard.
He said subsistence was never defined by the state of Alaska even
though they were charged with the regulation of that very activity.
The state also did not come up with a regulation that addressed the
federal government's concern. Mr. Gamble said you have to remember
where statehood came from, statehood came from the federal
government who allowed it to happen. There was also the event
where there was federally recognized Indian tribes. Mr. Gamble
stated the tribal government in Angoon, which is the Angoon
Community Association, was ratified November 15, 1939. He asked
the committee to look at the date of statehood and asked which one
came first. Mr. Gamble explained one of their bylaws, which was
approved by the federal government, is to be concerned of the
resources of their people around their area. Mr. Gamble stated
that ANCSA did not address those regulations that were approved by
the federal government. The ANCSA made profit-making corporations
and they were given a small amount of land, smaller amount of land
than traditional usage of areas. There was a report, which he
believed was a Smith and Haas (ph) that defined the areas of the
usage of the Native people from Angoon. The 23,040 is just a small
dot that were used by the people of Angoon. Mr. Gamble said the
reason customary and traditional was used, didn't have anything to
do with culture. He said, "In the community where you do the
things, you use the resources of those things around you. Others
have used that also in our community. In my lifetime, I've seen
nonNatives practice that activity."
MR. GAMBLE referred to why they want to amend ANILCA and said they
want to amend it on the account of rural preference. Rural
preference has been practiced by the state of Alaska ever since
it's conception. Mr. Gamble said, "How may representatives does
this community have in the state legislature? We have a portion of
one person. We don't have one person representing us, we have a
portion. So, there has always been a distinction between the small
community versus the large community. While I was serving as
mayor, there was a 10 percent cut on the revenue sharing from the
state of Alaska. At that time I was asked what did I think of the
revenue cut. The one that they had from Anchorage was about 20
times more than what I got as a community here in Angoon. I told
that out of $30,000, that we received 10 percent of that is $3,000.
I told them that didn't make much of a dent of how we operate our
small little community."
Mr. Gamble said their court records show how many people were
dragged into court and their cases were kicked out because the
state didn't have the right to regulate subsistence. He referred
to the last two times the state was granted an extended time to
comply with what ANILCA is telling them to do and they failed both
times.
MR. GAMBLE said he doesn't think the communities are asking for
preferential treatment. He said maybe they should take the rural
preference and turn it around so that all the regulations that
govern the lifestyles of the people of the small communities be
drafted in the communities. He suggested maybe the hearings should
be held in the communities.
TAPE 97-63, SIDE B
Number 001
MR. GAMBLE urged the committee to leave ANILCA alone. He said it
is not a federal takeover. It is just that state government has
lost the right to regulate subsistence and the federal government
has taken that right back. He said he thinks the tribes will have
the opportunity to participate in co-management with the federal
government. Mr. Gamble thanked the committee for letting him
testify.
Number 033
ALAN ZUBOFF testified via teleconference from Angoon. He said he
has lived in Angoon all of his life with the exception of a few
years while he was in the military. He informed the committee that
while he lived with his grandparents, they put up dry fish, herring
roe and cockels. He now teaches his children and grandchildren
where to get the fish, how much to take and how to put it up. Mr.
Zuboff said he is careful as to how much he takes. The Tlingits
have always been good at subsistence on Admiralty Island. Mr.
Zuboff talked of how worried the Tlingits are about subsistence for
their grandchildren. He said what they are really talking about is
eminent domain.
MR. ZUBOFF said, "The smokehouse issue here has become something
that -- well, it should not really be an issue at all. It should
be a given thing because eminent domain, we've been here, like my
grandfather said and my father-in-law, for many years. We've
enjoyed this fact. It's no theory. Nobody's guessed at it. We've
been here and we've been doing it and we're going to do it for the
rest of our lives. If somebody is going to say that we can't, then
they have another thought coming to them in thinking about it
because we're going to continue doing it."
MR. ZUBOFF referred to the U.S. Constitution and said it was
written with the laws of the Iroquois. A lot of Native people in
America enjoy that fact. Mr. Zuboff indicated he agrees with the
federal government regarding fish and game management.
Number 120
MARLENE ZUBOFF, Executive Director, Angoon Community Association,
testified via teleconference from Angoon. She stated she is
testifying on behalf of the Angoon Community Association and on
behalf of herself and a full Alaskan Native Tlingit. Ms. Zuboff
said, "I want to tell you that from time in memorial, our people
have enjoyed the resources of our land. I have been among my
elders from a child, have learned from them oral history, legends,
songs, dances, how to preserve food, how to be natural managers of
the land, how to teach my children to be natural managers of the
land so that we can live off these resources from time to come.
And at a time in my life, I have very much concern in hearing how
commercial fishermen, sports fishermen, that have the majority of
the resources with which to make an economic living on, come and
attack the few percent that my Native people rely on not just for
their subsistence, but for our spiritual aspect of our life - for
our cultural aspect of our life. It is tied to us as one, it is
not just to help us to survive. We are one with the land. We have
to depend on this land for our very livelihood. The economy here
is bad, in the villages. That is why you hear the tone change when
it comes to the rural communities. If you are going to take away
the few percent that we have to rely on -- right now you're looking
at welfare reform, and the rural communities, welfare reform will
not help. You will stop their food stamps and ask them to work 80
hours before they can get some more food stamps for them to rely on
the milk byproducts that we have now become accustomed to in the
Western civilization."
MS. ZUBOFF described how she learned from her mother and
grandmother how to preserve food and this has been a family affair.
She now teaches her children. Ms. Zuboff noted she hates to say
the word "teach" because it is a family affair and they do the
gathering together. Ms. Zuboff stated she has a 8-year old son, a
25-year old son and a 27-year old daughter. From the time her
children were small, it is in the records of the U.S. Forest
Service that as a young adult she has always taken part in
testifying in respect to logging in the Tlingit subsistence way of
life areas. Ms. Zuboff explained the elders have said that from
time in memorial, their people have been on the land. There are
stories that go back to several ices ages and the flood. She said
she heard a grandfather who said, "There will come a time when the
color of your skin, that they will no longer say you are Native and
they will not accept it." They also said, "There will come a time
when you have to take a card out of you pocket to say you are
Native." She stated that time has come.
MS. ZUBOFF explained the Native people in her community have to
rely off the land, not just for food. The food they get from the
land provides them with all the nutritional value that they need
when times are hard and the planes can't make it into Angoon. She
said she has been taught to preserve fish with the bones in it
because cooking the fish with the bones gives them the calcium that
their bodies need for strong teeth and bones.
MS. ZUBOFF said she hears commercial fishermen complaining about
the small percentage of food that people of rural communities rely
on for traditional and customary use of the land. She noted they
like "traditional and customary use of the land" and not
"subsistence use of the land." She said she was in Juneau when
Alaska became a state in 1959. Ms. Zuboff said she was in Angoon
in 1976 and has seen their subsistence at Favorite Bay almost
totally wiped out of its herring. To this date, she has not seen
the herring replenished to the capacity that it once had. She said
they no longer use herring because of they way it has been
completely wiped out.
MS. ZUBOFF said, "I have seen with the federal that they have
protected up to the 200 mile limit and also on the high sea. Our
people is not afraid of the federal coming in. I have seen from
the time I've been a young person growing up where our language was
taken from us by the state of Alaska through the school system. I
have seen that happen also through the Bureau of Indian Affairs.
I have not seen that replaced. We not only look at extinguishment
of our resources, but of our Native tongue as well. Something
needs to happen for the aborigines of this land. We are the
indigenous people of Alaska. We have been here from time in
memorial. And as stated earlier, they have proven that we have
been here for 10,000 years. They have found evidence - a fish weir
3,000 years old. We have seen what has happened in respect to our
traditional and customary use of the land. I do not want to see
the time where they're going to start monitoring us on the very
gumboots that we take from the land. As natural managers of the
land, I teach my children not to take every gumboot they come
across. I teach them to leave the smaller ones there so that we
can be able to rely on it the next season. And as natural managers
of the land, I do the same thing when it comes to my customary and
traditional use of fish. My children learn how to do this, how to
smoke the fish, how to put it up, how to put it away for the
winter, how to share it with families and friends."
MS. ZUBOFF said she hopes the committee has heard her well and
noted she doesn't wish to offend anyone. She said subsistence is
their inherent right and she asked for help in protecting it. Ms.
Zuboff said the commercial fishermen will have fish for as long as
there is fish for commercial use. Their rights are being protected
by special interest groups. She said the legislators need to hear
the Native people as well and to be there for them. If the
legislature is going to take this away from them, provide the means
to bring in the economy that would provide them jobs to rely on the
Caucasian way of life. She thanked the committee for listening to
her.
Number 281
LEE PUTMAN, Ketchikan Sports and Wildlife Club, came forward to
give his testimony. He noted the membership of his organization
consists of personal use hunters and fishermen who rely on the
resources to feed their families too. They have a long history of
harvesting game and putting it up for the winter too. Mr. Putman
said his organization doesn't feel subsistence users should be
punished for harvesting the resources and they don't feel they
should be denied access to the resources they feel they need to
survive. Mr. Putman noted they have jobs, but they also eat deer,
fish and berries. He said unconstitutional federal law shouldn't
force us to change our state constitution.
Number 300
KAY ANDREW came before the committee members to present her
testimony. She stated she is a lifelong Ketchikan resident. Ms.
Andrew said, "As an American and an Alaskan, I am being told or
asked by the Governor of this state and the Congressional
delegation that I have to give up my right to fish and game to some
rural person or group. This appalls me. I don't think it's right,
I don't think it's fair and I don't think it needs to be done. We
have enough resources in this state that every person in this state
should be able to get subsistence. And I don't understand why the
state of Alaska doesn't say to the federal government, `Why do you
have a problem with every person in this state having subsistence?'
To my knowledge, there is no reason why we can't all have
subsistence, so why are we fighting about this in the first place?
This is not acceptable to me or my family. My family has lived off
of land and hard work and sweat for generations, maybe not in
Alaska, but somewhere they did. What is the difference between my
family and a rural family. None that I know of. For my whole
life, my parents taught me to hunt and to fish and to preserve food
and to eat it."
MS. ANDREW indicated that she was taught that she never kill
anything that she couldn't eat and she never wasted anything that
she took to eat. She said she is being asked to give up this right
because of a zip code. She was on the Regional Council for the
state of Alaska when these rural preferences came forth. Ms.
Andrew indicated she spent a lot of time debating this issue. She
pointed out that every place in Southeast Alaska except Juneau and
Ketchikan got rural status. Ketchikan lost out for 4,200 people.
Sitka got it. Sitka has an airport, Ketchikan has an airport.
Sitka has a pulp mill, Ketchikan has a pulp mill. Ms. Andrew said
Sitka had everything Ketchikan had except 4,200 more people. That
is how they chose rural status in Ketchikan, Alaska. She said this
isn't right.
MS. ANDREW said the Native (indisc.) in Anchorage presented seven
or eight points of view and she believes number seven said,
"Subsistence is a basic human right." She said it is a basic human
right. So, does that make her unhuman as an urban resident? Ms.
Andrew said the bottom line is money and that is what this whole
issue is about. It is the money that can be made off of
subsistence. If we eliminate the sales, we eliminate the problem.
If we are faced to change our constitution, the federal government
and the state, in her view, will be responsible for creating
apartheid. To her, apartheid means institutional racism and
bigotry. We will be supporting two classes of people in this
state. Ms. Andrew indicated the federal government took Alaska's
fisheries management units and turned them into their management
units. There is no place in this state for urban people to go to
hunt and fish.
MS. ANDREW stated that you cannot expect Alaskans to support
something they don't understand or know what the end result is
going to be. We need to know exactly what it is we're giving it up
and we need to know if all of us are giving it up or just part of
us. Ms. Andrew said Alaskans trusted our Congressional delegation
when ANCSA was passed and were told this would settle the dispute.
Then ANILCA, Title VIII, was passed. It was passed against a
strong constitution that was written when Alaska became a state and
was ratified by Congress. They knew when they developed Title
VIII, it was outside of our constitution and the only way we could
come into compliance with that was to change our constitution. She
asked if there is any other state that has ever been asked to
change their constitution to come in compliance with a federal law.
Ms. Andrew said she believes Alaska should take the federal
government to court as they don't have a right to develop Title
VIII outside of our constitution. She asked the committee members
to not forget to include the urban users in the solution. Our
rural brothers and sisters are getting very heavy to carry and pay
for, we need to have some input in on this too. Just because
people live in a city doesn't mean everybody has a high paying job.
Ms. Andrew referred to testifiers saying they teach their children
and grandchildren traditions and said she would also like the
privilege. She stated she doesn't believe that people in Alaska
have a right to anything because of where they live, their race,
their heritage or anything else. This is modern times, what
happened 10,000 or 10 million years ago really doesn't have
anything to do with what is happening today. We all have a right
to live in this state.
MS. ANDREW asked about the urban Native people such as the
Ketchikan Native people. It is her understanding that they aren't
eligible for subsistence. She said she then heard an answer that
said, "Well maybe they are eligible for subsistence under another
tier or whatever it might be." She asked if the urban people, that
live in Ketchikan, that aren't Native heritage, are going to be the
only ones left out of this. Ms. Andrew said she also heard
Representative Nicholia talk about times of shortage. She said it
has been her understanding that there is no such thing. Ms. Andrew
read the seven points of subsistence and cited several court cases.
MS. ANDREW said a testifier from Kake indicated limited
entry/individual fishing quotas is one of the problems. Nobody has
said anything about the community development quotas (CDQs) which
were given to the Northern coastal villages. Ms. Andrew said, "As
far as I understood when I was on the Board of Fish, how the
coastal villages have some money to come into their communities to
develop their communities and their economics. I also several
times today have heard people refer to having their food taken
away. I have seen nothing in any document that the state or anyone
else has produced, trying to follow this situation, say that anyone
was taking food away from anyone. I don't think that again there
is any person in this state that wants to take food away from
anyone. And again, I'm going to ask in closing that why can't we
all have subsistence? Is there a problem with our resources? Do
we have a shortage? Why aren't we just fighting for all of us to
have this?"
MS. ANDREW said, "I heard a conversation in the Anchorage airport
a couple of weeks ago when I was up there for a meeting. And I was
sitting there and there were three gentlemen sitting down - and, in
fact, one of them was from Kake, down a couple of chairs down from
me - and they were talking about subsistence and how they had been
gathering subsistence and hunting. And the gentleman from Kake
asked one of the other gentlemen, `Well, you know, where are you
going?' He said, `Well I'm going home.' And he said, `Oh you're
going back to Golovin?' He said, `No, I live in Arizona. I just
came up here to get my subsistence.' Now this man can have
subsistence and live in Arizona, but a lifelong Ketchikan person
can live in Ketchikan year-round and can't have. There is
something wrong with our system. We need to work together. We
need to fix it and we need to all have equal right (indisc.).
Thank you."
Number 462
REPRESENTATIVE NICHOLIA said the way the law functions in this
state is that in her district, for moose hunting, they are under
general regulations both on federal and state land. Everyone in
this state has access to the moose. The only time on federal lands
when the law kicks in is when they have a shortage. There hasn't
been a problem like that. However, there has been a shortage of
caribou on one of highways in Alaska, so they reverted to the Tier
1, Tier 2 process. The people that completed the applications and
were qualified were able to hunt the caribou. Ms. Andrew had
stated that there are no other states that have this.
Representative Nicholia said that is true because Alaska is unique
and is one of the few states that still has their fish and game
resources.
Number 484
MS. ANDREW said the Tier 1 and Tier 2 system is probably like the
elk lottery in Ketchikan. They have a lottery because there aren't
enough elk to provide for everyone.
Number 490
BEN HASTINGS, Ketchikan Sports and Wildlife Club, came forward to
give his testimony. He informed the committee members he was born
in the Territory of Alaska 46 years ago in Ketchikan. He is
involved in an organization called Care and he is also on the board
of directors of the Ketchikan Sports and Wildlife Club. Mr.
Hastings read his statement:
"I'd like to share with you my concerns about the subsistence
dilemma that we've been involved in for years. The proposal to
change our constitution to grant a priority to rural people for the
taking of fish and game is unacceptable to the people of Ketchikan,
Alaska. Why are we even considering changing our constitution?
I'll bet it has something to do with Title VIII of ANILCA, a
federal law passed in 1980. I ask myself how can we allow the
federal government to pass any thing that violates our
constitution. Then to add insult to injury, the Governor has
suggested to change our constitution to come in compliance with
federal law. Doesn't our constitution mean anything? Our
constitution that went into effect in 1959 means a great deal to
me. It guarantees me the same rights to our fish and game as it
does to other Alaskans, whether they live in Ketchikan, Saxman,
Anchorage or Santa Clause in the North Pole. Under the common use
clause, I am very proud of people like Beverly Masek which stated,
`When I was elected to office, I took an oath to protect and defend
our constitution.' God bless Beverly Masek.
"The right thing to do is to amend Title VIII of ANILCA. We were
given an example of federal management earlier this year and a
decision by the federal Subsistence Council. They wanted to
eliminate people from Ketchikan to be able to harvest deer on
Prince of Whales Island. That decision was made without the input
of state or federal biologists. It was based on greed, not need.
I was involved in collecting the support of 700 local voters to
overturn that decision. If we allow the federal government to take
control of both fish and game, I feel we will be faced with similar
treatment yearly, only on a much bigger scale.
"There are three law suits in which I've been interested in and I
just spoke with Mr. Popely earlier this afternoon to make sure I
had my facts straight. The Bobby case - the Bobby case allowed
subsistence priorities at all time and it is not triggered by a
shortage. The Katie John case allows subsistence-qualified people
to shut down commercial, personal use and sport down steam. The
Peratrovich case - the Peratrovich case allows for barter and
trade. The figure was $45,000 divided three ways. They took
herring eggs on Prince of Whales Island. Now let's put those cases
together. Let's say subsistence is in effect at all times - the
Bobby case. Now let's say if I move from Ketchikan to Prince of
Whales Island, I do own property there, do I need a limited entry
permit to fish? I don't think so. I think I can take sockeye for
subsistence because now I'm subsistence qualified. But because I
have a problem with greed, under the Katie John case I can shut
down the commercial fishery until I get mine. When I catch our
fish for subsistence, I can sell those fish - the Peratrovich case.
"These are some of the concerns of the local people of Ketchikan as
well as the Ketchikan Gateway Borough and the city of Ketchikan.
Those two bodies have passed individual resolutions, unanimously.
And I'll present those two resolutions to you at this time. I have
a solution. Let's treat everybody equally. Ted, Frank and Don
must do the job that they were hired to do. We have got to amend
Title VIII of ANILCA. I have also stated my interests to this body
before and I'll do it again today. If there is anything at all
that I can do to help to try to come up with a solution to this
dilemma, please don't hesitate to ask. You might have to get me
out of the shipyard on the Taku, but I'll be happy to help in any
way I can. Thank you."
Number 550
PATRICIA PHILLIPS testified via teleconference from Pelican. She
indicated she has sent the committee members a letter dated July
20, 1997. Ms. Phillips noted she is a member of the Southeast
Regional Federal Subsistence Advisory Council that was appointed by
Secretary Bruce Babbit, but she is speaking on behalf of herself.
Ms. Phillips explained she and her husband are commercial fisher
people and have lived in Pelican for 24 years. Her children's
grandparents are born and raised Native and nonNative Alaskans.
The terms and definitions are clearly defined in ANILCA. She said
ANILCA, Section 801, "The Congress finds and declares that - (1)
the continuation of the opportunity for subsistence uses by rural
residents of Alaska, including Natives and non-Natives, on the
public lands and by Alaska Natives on Native lands is essential to
Native physical, economic, traditional, and cultural existence and
to non-Native physical, economic, traditional and social
existence."
MS. PHILLIPS referred to Pelican and said the economy is based on
the seasonal production of the fishing industry and more recently,
tourism based services. In the off season, the economy slows to a
halt and most people living in Pelican live off summer earnings,
deer meat, fish and other locally gathered subsistence foods.
MS. PHILLIPS referred to the Tongass Land Management Plan (TLMP)
and read: "A significant possibility of a significant restriction
of subsistence use by increasing competition for some subsistence
resources by nonrural as well as rural residents. This is most
likely to occur on Chichagof, Baranof and/or Prince of Whales
Islands where competition for deer and some other land mammals is
already heavy and habitat capability has been reduced as a result
of timber harvest."
MS. PHILLIPS said resources dwindle and diminish and competition
from other user groups increases, the political process will limit
subsistence rights. The decisions and regulations that she helped
formulate involved state, federal, managers and staff, and Native
input. She said Pelican is affected by increased competition
because of the number of sport hunters, charter hunters from
Juneau, and hunting lodges opening in the area. A boat from Sitka
with eight hunters bagged 40 deer per trip and made two trips last
season near the Pelican area. Sport hunters from Juneau fly out
and ferry back with deer. Ms. Phillips said the local hunter must
travel and more frequently to meet their needs. Protective
measures need to be in place that reduce subsistence impacts.
Pelican is a subsistence qualifying community and has a traditional
dependence on subsistence resources. Ms. Phillips stated a problem
of duel management is the confusion of conflicting regulations.
There should be a system in place for joint regulations to form
with input from federal, state and Native involvement, in other
words, co-management.
MS. PHILLIPS said the decisions and regulations she helped
formulate involve state, federal mangers and staff and Native
input, each with information pertinent to the issues involved. The
federal Subsistence Board currently is responsive to villages'
subsistence needs. Under the past state system of management the
subsistence users had little or no representation. It is why the
subsistence user prefers federal subsistence management. The
reality of audiological and cultural differences of subsistence
users and sports users is inherent. Some user groups do not
comprehend local, customary and traditional values. The Native
cultural identity possess a unique past of which we are actively
trying to carry into the future. Ms. Phillips stated the
recognition of subsistence harvest has created resentment and
resistances to the priority established and strengthened by federal
subsistence management. The formulating of federal subsistence
management regulation has empowered and recognized subsistence
users and their harvest methods. If the state should succeed in
the takeover of subsistence management, the regulations should
contain the regulations established under federal subsistence
management. She thanked the committee for listening to her
testimony.
Number 515
CO-CHAIRMAN HUDSON explained the evening agenda.
TAPE 97-64, SIDE A
Number 001
REPRESENTATIVE JOULE indicated he wouldn't be attending via
teleconference later in the evening.
CO-CHAIRMAN and called for a dinner break at 4:45 p.m. He called
the House Resources Committee meeting back to order at 6:20 p.m.
Members present were Representatives Green, Dyson and Hudson.
Representative Williams arrived at 6:40 p.m. Co-Chairman Hudson
announced Representative Nicholia wouldn't be in attendance as she
had to catch an airplane.
Number 031
JOHN PECKHAM, Board Member, Southeast Alaska Seiners Association,
came before the committee to testify. He said he purse seines for
salmon for most of his living. Mr. Peckham stated his organization
supports, in general, the Governor's task force recommendations.
He believes it is a relatively practical and reasonable way to keep
the federal government from running our fisheries.
MR. PECKHAM referred to the subsistence issue and said it has been
one of the top priorities of his organization for many years even
though subsistence fishing has had little impact, so far, on their
fishery. It is a priority because it has a large potential for
drastically curtailing the fishy. The problem isn't the number of
fish that might be taken. The problem is that most subsistence
fish are taken in-river or near terminal areas and, in many cases,
managers don't have a clear idea how many fish are going to end up
in the rivers when fisheries start. Mr. Peckham said if the
managers were told to manage to absolutely assure that there are
going to be enough fish available, over and above escapement, to
assure subsistence then many of the seine fisheries could not take
place. He said his organization has three principles in mind that
they would like to see. The first is they would like to restrict
subsistence use to those communities that really need it so that
the number of subsistence users is small and would reduce the
potential for conflict. Mr. Peckham said they would like to see
the restriction of any sales of subsistence fish so that an
economic vested interest isn't created that would be fighting for
increased allocations. Mr. Peckham said, "And we wanted to have
subsistence implemented with some reasonable flexibility. For
example, if one sockeye system that is used for subsistence is weak
in one year, rather than looking at further curtailing for
fisheries which might already be curtailed for conservation, that
if there is a nearby system with salmon that has surplus, the
subsistence users could be directed to that system." He indicated
they don't want the federal government to run Alaska's fisheries.
If the federal government takes over, we will have very little
chance to effect public policy on decisions regarding our
fisheries. Mr. Peckham informed the committee members that the way
he reads the regulations, the decision makers won't be allowed to
balance economic or social needs in their decisions. All that they
would be able to look at is conservation and subsistence needs. He
said his organization sees a great potential for major impacts to
the seine fishery. Mr. Peckham said his organization doesn't see
a better solution right now than the one the task force is
proposing. He said the Southeast Alaska Seiners Association will
be submitting specific comments regarding the recommendations.
Number 108
CO-CHAIRMAN HUDSON asked Mr. Peckham what percentage of the
Southeast Alaska Seiners Association are residents.
MR. PECKHAM responded that approximately 56 percent of purse
seiners on Southeast Alaska are nonresidents. He said he believes
it is the highest percentage of any of the gear groups in Alaska.
Number 118
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN said, "When you were talking about if a
certain area were low and maybe an adjacent or similar nearby area
could have an excess that you could make that -- have some
flexibility. We're you thinking about a discrete stock management
in that or would this -- just trying to figure where we might go if
something like that (indisc.)."
MR. PECKHAM responded, "Well I'm not sure of the connections. It's
just simply if a system needs to be implemented in a practical and
reasonable way so that if we end up with a lot of subsistence
classified streams, and that could happen - there are a lot of
subsistence users, and it was the obligation of those making the
decisions to make sure that if that stream had been used for
subsistence that the manager of the fishery is required to make
sure that stream has fished every year over and above escapement.
That would create a situation which we call `weak stock
management,' because every system doesn't have a surplus every year
even though the basic health of the resources might be healthy."
Number 147
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN said he thinks he is following what Mr.
Peckham is saying. He said, "If stream A was perhaps low on reds,
and you said well we're not going to impact that because steam B is
in abundance and so, therefore, we'll just continue to go ahead and
fish. While it might be -- the rest of the stock may be up on
stream A, were you thinking of just total catch the discrete stock
management or was that nuance that we'd have to look at later. The
concept is that you wouldn't want flexibility and we'll work the
details later."
MR. PECKHAM responded, "Details later?"
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN said, "Well, I guess I'm not asking the
question properly, but there is an anadromous stream that has three
or four or five types of salmon coming in. Are we going to manage
for any one of those? Are we going to look at the total return?"
MR. PECKHAM said management is complex because often there is more
than one salmon species going up and individual river. He said,
"Actually I wasn't thinking that. I was thinking of the fact that
there are, for instance, in Southeast we have many streams, very
few big river systems. And the managers manage the fisheries to
try to get an overall good escapement in all systems, not to get
good escapement in every system which is an impossible task."
Number 174
CO-CHAIRMAN HUDSON said what he thinks Mr. Peckham is referring to
is management for an overall good escapement for the conservation
of the stream. If we have subsistence, we would add that in again
so that there would be the overall best help for all users as
opposed to discrete stock as it tends to be terminal fisheries.
From a commercial point of view, it doesn't put the best product
out into the market.
Number 184
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN said he is concerned with the Cook Inlet area.
"If a certain stock was low and yet there was another stream that
wasn't impacted, with what I understood your position to be is that
a preference wouldn't impact the low stocks because the total
drainage area or the larger area might have a sufficient number of
whatever it might be that was (indisc.) on this one stream. But
the impact that we've seen, for example, in the Susitna drainage
area there is a certain type of fish that's low there that might,
I think what you were saying, continue to be impacted because it
could be made -- I mean the total area could be made up out of the
stream and yet that doesn't help this Susitna drainage."
Number 201
MR. PECKHAM said that is fundamentally one of the difficulties of
managing our fisheries. He said, "There is a various amount of
management measures management can make to try pull it -- to get
fish in the steams. So, rather than go the entire nine yards
totally shutting down a fishery, if there is a way to subscribe to
allow subsistence users to still get their subsistence fish and
allow some fishing to go on other stocks which incidentally catches
fish going to that stream -- than that's what I'm trying to get
at."
Number 215
MR. WESTLUND came forward and said he thinks Mr. Peckham is trying
to tell the committee is that if stock A is low in the creek and
there is another creek over in another area or drainage, and is not
traditionally a subsistence creek, you go from A to B instead of
shutting the commercial fisherman or the sport user down. There is
still subsistence fish to be taken. He asked Mr. Peckham if that
is correct.
Number 229
CHRIS JOHNSON, Gillnetter, was next to come before the committee.
He stated he agrees with everything Mr. Peckham said. He said he
believes subsistence has its place and the state has done a
tremendous job in managing the resource. Mr. Johnson informed the
committee members he has a lot of Native and rural friends and they
never have had any problems getting the amount of salmon that they
need to use for subsistence. Mr. Johnson said the state
implemented a system where you get limited entry. He said he
bought his permit and boat and has about $200,000 into it. His
feeling is that permits would devaluate quite a bit and if the
federal government takes over. It wouldn't help matters at all as
he is sure the fisherman would be cut back in many areas.
MR. JOHNSON said he thinks there are a lot of other alternatives.
Historically, when the federal government did manage Alaskan
waters, it was a disaster similar to what is happening in
Washington State. Mr. Johnson indicated that if the federal
government takes over management, it will be a devastating impact
on his personal situation and probably everybody's. He referred to
over escapement and said if they did away with commercial fishing,
which could very easily happen, there would be over escapement in
all the streams which is worse than under escapement. Commercial
fishing has its spot in conservation management. Mr. Johnson said
he thinks the state is doing a very good job and he'd hate to see
anything change.
Number 264
CO-CHAIRMAN HUDSON said an Eskimo elder who spoke at the hearing in
Bethel and said that when you don't hunt a species, it becomes
extinct. Hunting and harvesting is part of the cycle and the key
is the management of it so that you have the healthy conservation.
Number 274
MR. JOHNSON said there are a lot of different things that could be
done. For example, a commercial fisherman could go out and fish
and bring in a certain amount of fish, if that area was depleted,
from other areas and then give that fish to subsistence users if it
ever came to that. He said he is sure commercial fishermen would
be willing to do something like that. There are a lot of
alternatives. The state has done a tremendous job, and he would
like to see it kept that way.
Number 289
ED MARKSHEFFEL came before the committee to testify. He stated he
has lived in Ketchikan for about 41 years. Mr. Marksheffel
referred to subsistence permits and said, "If you didn't use it,
you don't lose it." He informed the committee that he uses the
fishery permits. If you have never used a subsistence fishing
permit, you aren't losing it. He referred to limited entry and
said he would like to see a limited entry on subsistence permits
for those who have had them, grandfather in the past permit
holders. The Department of Fish and Game has records of who has
had these permits. He said limited entry of subsistence permits
couldn't be sold like the commercial limited entry licenses and
should only be passed down to the residents of Alaska in the
immediate family. Mr. Marksheffel suggested dropping the rural
reference altogether. He said all of Alaska is rural, maybe not
Anchorage, but all of Alaska is rural when you get right down to
it. The population of the whole state is less than a suburb of Los
Angeles. Mr. Marksheffel thanked the committee for listening.
Number 311
CO-CHAIRMAN HUDSON indicated that Mr. Marksheffel has made an
interesting suggestion about limited entry.
MR. MARKSHEFFEL said you wouldn't be excluding anyone because the
people who had have the permits would still have the permits.
CO-CHAIRMAN HUDSON indicated essentially the targeted stock would
be fish and not game, but it may even work well for game.
Number 331
RICHARD JACKSON came before the committee to testify. He said he
was formally the subsistence chairman for the Ketchikan Indian
Corporation and has been involved with the U.S. Forest Service
doing environmental impact statements. He said he a nonrural
person. He worked with Saxman when they had the issue of their
rural status a number of years ago and was successful in retaining
the rural status. Mr. Jackson referred to the problem the state is
facing and said ANILCA was established in 1980. He said "It does
pertain to rural people because it would be unconstitutional based
upon race. But along with that issue, and I think it comes up in
this case, the issue of the Native community. That is true, there
are 220 tribes or more in Alaska. There are also other rural areas
that are non-Native by nature and in ANILCA it is usually
traditional and customary uses of subsistence. And if you look at
Native management you look at subsistence more than just getting
food. It's a cultural existence in the South. I've watched the
issue in this area as it pertains to management and the regional
advisory council, the Forest Service particularly on the Prince of
Whales issue. I do agree with the hunters in Ketchikan who were
correct in the lobbying to get their right to hunt on Prince of
Whales and that ruling by the advisory council was overturned. I
guess what I'm trying to say that (indisc.) has in the language
that excluding that doesn't allow for the aboriginal rights as we
do it. It was addressed in the Congress report by the Senate at
that time and that became an issue later on as what transpired.
Their intent was to (indisc.) subsistence uses and they come down
to do that. It does have nonrural language in it which excludes
about five or six major towns in Alaska and they're not happy with
it. But if you want to ask me as a Native subsistence chairman in
an area which does not subsist in terms of rural, we have to go to
a personal use. I agree with ANILCA and I agree with that language
in there. I think that Alaska is out of compliance and that we
will have to go into the legislative session to get into
compliance. Now whether they are successful in that is up to the
state. I'm not talking just about the legislature, but the members
of this state includes a number of user groups, not only
subsistence users. We're talking about the population, the
seiners, the trollers, gillnetters and additional users are the
(indisc.) groups, Native subsistence users, rural subsistence
users, major fishery groups. It's just going to take a lot of
work, but for us, the Native people, I think we've been backed into
a situation where we have to have inclusion for a
traditional/customary use and that does satisfy our needs in
ANILCA, although it doesn't address major towns that have Native
communities."
MR. JACKSON informed the committee members he is from Ketchikan and
his family is the Tongass tribe. They were in Ketchikan before it
was settled. He noted "Ketchikan" means "under the wings of
eagle." They shared their land with the Cape Fox people. He said
they have been pretty much culturally decimated because there is
not cultural base as far as the land. Mr. Jackson said he thinks
that ANILCA satisfies the rural land nonrural position of people in
Alaska and the state must get into compliance with ANILCA. He said
that we don't have very much time to come into compliance.
Number 402
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN indicated the committee is truly trying to get
input regarding the issue. He said the committee has heard that
the subsistence issue among the Native culture is not just for
food, but it is also a heritage type of a thing as it part of the
culture as well. He said there was an earlier suggestion in that
depending on how things shake out, the commercial fishermen could
make up a deficit, if there was such a thing as a deficit on the
subsistence issue. Representative Green asked, "Would the Native
culture would work with that kind of a concept or do you need to
catch you own game - fish and game?"
MR. JACKSON responded it is a spiritual relationship with the land
and it is an undefined element. For the Natives, it is going out
and (indisc.) -- hunter going out and getting his deer. It is
something that you can't really express, except that it is
spiritually part of the community. It is a network of the
community to share the wealth of the land. Without that, they
(indisc.) part of their culture.
Number 421
MR. AMBROSE referred to the state management of fish and game and
asked Mr. Jackson why the subsistence need is not met with the
personal use provisions. He said Mr. Jackson mentioned that as a
urban resident, he uses personal use. He asked why that can't be
done statewide.
MR. JACKSON informed the committee that personal use has quota on
it that doesn't satisfy family need. When you look at personal use
for subsistence you can't allow a member of another community to
subsist for their elders and those that are handicapped are
(indisc.). Personal use doesn't satisfy the internal network that
families work together. He said he believes it would be more
difficult for those communities to do that under those terms.
Number 436
MR. AMBROSE asked if the state regulations on personal use couldn't
be rewritten to more adequately the needs Mr. Jackson is talking
about. He questioned why there should be two tiers of management.
Mr. Ambrose asked why we don't address it on a state level, call it
whatever you want to call it, personal use or subsistence, as long
as you have access to the resource.
MR. JACKSON said, "I don't see it as too systematic (indisc.) that
the state gets in compliance with ANILCA. That will be (indisc.)
the federal government will allow the state manage subsistence or
manage it under ANILCA. I don't see - envision a two management
systems although it is been mentioned as far as a cooperative
effort between the state and the Native community. But I see with
state management, which would have input from the advisory councils
from Native communities. That's what I think."
Number 446
CO-CHAIRMAN HUDSON read from Article VIII, Section 15 of the Alaska
Constitution, "No Exclusive Right of Fishery. ...does not restrict
the power of the state to limited entry into any fishery for
purposes of resource conservation, to prevent economic distress
among fishermen and those dependent upon them for a livelihood and
to promote aquaculture..." He said Mr. Jackson and his family is
from Ketchikan and under the rural designation, he would not be
eligible for subsistence. There are many Native people, by birth,
who believe that they should have the right to take subsistence
even though they live in urban areas and they would be precluded by
the rural designation. Co-Chairman Hudson said Mr. Ambrose brought
up the idea of personal use which could be personal use
subsistence, but it would have a broader context that would
guarantee or assure, to the greatest extent possible, that people
in those areas of the state of Alaska, where they have a natural
dependence or extraordinary dependence upon the taking of the
resources for subsistence purposes would have them. He asked if
there is some way that we could get off of being stuck on what the
feds have written. He said, "I have a feeling what we're trying to
do is we're dancing all over the head of this pin trying to figure
out how we can comply with the federal law, and at the same time,
we're nervous as we can be because we don't believe that -- or
we're concerned that there may not be sufficient votes to change
the constitution." He said he is looking at the constitution to
see if there is tie-in to it as it currently exists. We already
have common use. We have Section 15, No Exclusive Right of
Fishery. We also have Section 17, Uniform Application. All three
of those probably could work into personal use of subsistence or
whatever you want to call it. It would guarantee rural, but it
might also cover some of Mr. Jackson's brothers and sisters who
live in Ketchikan and some people in Juneau who are precluded from
taking subsistence.
Number 480
MR. JACKSON said that is some language that can be looked at as far
as making an inclusion for those who are not eligible for (indisc.)
status for subsistence. He said that would be something to look
at. He said he would hope that the negotiating team that was
proposed by (indisc.) and look at one of those avenues for
including them.
Number 490
MR. MARKSHEFFEL referred to his earlier comments and stated he did
use his personal use permit. He said he didn't relate the fact
that it is on the same form as subsistence and it could be all one.
Number 496
CO-CHAIRMAN HUDSON said up in Bethel the committee heard the
concerns the people had over the paperwork and all the steps they
had to go through. He noted they were people who had subsistence
rights under current law and under the proposed federal law. They
felt each and every time it was somebody from Juneau or Washington,
D.C., that was telling them how they were supposed to harvest and
when. He indicated the paperwork was cumbersome. In any final
arrangement, we ought to look seriously at how manageable the
opportunity is once we get the fine pattern down, whether it be
subsistence, personal use, a combination of both or a permitting
system. It ought to make it as easy as possible, subject to the
management of the resources for the people who are using it.
Number 518
JANICE JACKSON came before the committee members to testify. She
said as a subsistence user, she is in attendance to defend that
right for her family. She said it important to them, not only as
a lifestyle as a means of getting food, but also culturally because
they are so connected to the land. It is hard to explain, but it
is something that is passed on from family to family and they will
continue to do it no matter who manages the issue of subsistence.
Ms. Jackson said there are enough resources for all of us. We need
to look at some way to manage it besides changing ANILCA. She
noted she doesn't know what the solution is. Ms. Jackson informed
the committee members that earlier in the day she spoke to other
subsistence users and they weren't really aware of the hearing. We
need to reach them in other ways to get their view points. She
stated she doesn't think it is right for government to pit one
group of people against another, subsistence users versus urban
users. It would be nice to keep the control in Alaska and for
people to have more of a say so in the management of our resources.
Number 547
CO-CHAIRMAN HUDSON said co-management has been discussed where you
would have more local involvement or input into the process. He
referred to commercial fisheries and said there are advisory
committees, the Board of Fisheries and the Board of Game. Co-
Chairman Hudson referred to the rural preference, which is
currently in ANILCA, and said it does go beyond what Ms. Jackson
would consider to be the cultural aspects of it. It also takes
care of subsistence uses for non-Natives who live in rural Alaska.
In some respects, that gap between the half a dozen different races
has been bridged by providing a rural preference for subsistence
purposes. He said it doesn't seem to him like we're denying Native
Alaskans in rural Alaska, for example, their rights to take, to use
and to feel the cultural, the spiritual and those kinds of things.
At the same time, it didn't deny, doesn't deny and won't deny if we
leave it as it is in ANILCA those who are non-Natives who will also
be eligible for essentially an equal taking. He said he has got to
believe that there is a way in which we can permit and establish
the law on an overall basis so as to guarantee Ms. Jackson the
right to maintain that special essence of her lifestyle and, at the
same time, not deny others in similar situations which is a
provision of the constitution as well.
MS. JACKSON noted she would like to be involved on a continual
basis on some kind of a board or committee.
Number 571
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN said Ms. Jackson and several other people have
testified that under no circumstance do they want ANILCA changed.
He asked if that is because they probably want the protection
afforded to ANILCA for an assurance of a subsistence right. If a
compromise could be worked out so that there is that assurance,
since ANILCA refers to rural, but if there was some other way to
assure this and the word "rural" wasn't used, would she still
insist on not changing ANILCA or that it would have to be a
constitutional change. He asked if the focus is to try and be sure
that is going to be subsistence rights or that they want the
protection afforded by ANILCA.
Number 579
MS. JACKSON said when you get into trying to change one word or
another, it gets real sticky. She referred to the word subsistence
and said a lot of people are opposed to it. She said she would
like to speak to the committee on a continuing basis. It's nice to
be heard in trying to solve this dilemma.
Number 584
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN indicated he is just trying to figure out how
deep-seated the non-willingness to change ANILCA is.
MS. JACKSON said she doesn't believe it is a solution, but she
would have to look at other solutions first to see which is the
worst of the two. That's the hard part.
Number 588
CO-CHAIRMAN HUDSON asked if there was anyone in attendance who
wishes to testify or if there is anyone who already testified who
wishes to add additional testimony.
Number 595
MR. HASTINGS, who testified before the committee earlier, said one
thing that disturbs him is the fact that for some reason we can't
solve this dilemma. He said there are people who would like to be
part of this solution and urged the committee or the Governor to
call.
Number 604
CO-CHAIRMAN HUDSON announced the committee would take a ten minute
break at 7:10 p.m.
TAPE 97-64, SIDE B
Number 001
The House Resources Committee meeting was called back to order at
7:25 p.m.
CO-CHAIRMAN HUDSON informed the committee members that there are
several people who would like to testify via teleconference.
Number 018
LONNIE ANDERSON, Mayor, City of Kake, testified via teleconference
from Kake. He said, "I'd like to speak in a traditional and
customary use of resources there and just drop that other word
entirely. I think that's a misnomer. But when ANILCA passed,
villages did not give up the right to use traditional and customary
resources for their existence. And by that, I would like to
explain that we don't, in our villages, have traditional and
customary use of supermarkets - things of that sort. We had to
live off the land basically for our primary needs. The personal
use aspect, I can put that as the second use of the natural
resources after the traditional and customary use by rural
residents has been fulfilled. Many of us are fishermen and things
of that sort and we take food home in a personal use manner. That
could be fulfilled. And I'd like to say just a little bit about if
we are forced to go to a constitutional amendment and as a
minority, the groups of our villages would -- any amendment that
would favor traditional and customary use would more than likely
fail. And the other item that I would like to mention is that when
we use our resources, it's used to the fullest. A lot of times,
especially our elderly people, they still live in the old
traditional customary way and the new regulations that we impose on
our people who may not understand the 21st century, they feel like
they're intimidated. And we need to make some kind of amendment
that our elders, not only our elders but the people who have to go
to the supermarket up in some bays and get their fish and things of
that sort, do not feel that intimidation. And I guess I would like
to thank you Bill - Representative Hudson to bring this forum to
before the committee that listen to quite a few excellent
testimonies. And it's no easy solution there."
Number 138
CO-CHAIRMAN HUDSON referred to Mr. Anderson saying resources are
used to the fullest extent and that perhaps elders and others, who
perhaps are not accustomed to supermarkets, et cetera, feel
intimidation. He asked Mr. Anderson if he knows of anything that
would minimize or eliminate that feeling of intimidation.
Number 140
MR. ANDERSON said when they would go out to get sockeyes, they get
a slip of paper saying they are allowed 20 fish for household use.
Mr. Anderson indicated some people may need more. Their areas of
resources is about two and a half hours by speed boat which is an
expensive venture. You have to also take the weather into
consideration. He said, "If I needed 100 that would do me -- you
know what we call fresh pack, strips, smoke the fish, preserve it
in the traditional and customary way, it would save a lot of
expense on a lot of our - not only Kake people but other people in
the Panhandle here, if we could say -- I'm (indisc.) from a
traditional manner we know about how many fish that you use during
the year. And if they could put that on the application or ticket
or whatever we use, and they could go and feel that if they could
get their 100 and not be looked at -- (indisc.) if we go over and
we happen to think well nobody is around, I'll get my 100, then you
have an anxiety problem and we shouldn't have to have anxiety
problems in harvesting our foods."
Number 175
CO-CHAIRMAN HUDSON said he thinks he agrees because he doubts
seriously that we're talking about any major impact on the
resources.
MR. ANDERSON said if they were allowed to get what they need on the
first trip, it would save the people having to run back and forth
for five trips. He said from there, you could go into a personal
use category. Mr. Anderson indicated that he thinks the problem is
that when we came up with the word "subsistence," people said, "I
have to use it or I'm going to lose it." If they could stick to
their traditional foods, a lot of the fighting would probably go
away. He said, "Back in 1978 or 1979, we were going to change our
subsistence (indisc.) way and we just -- that word `subsistence'
crept into our vocabulary and everybody felt that was the end of
all of our fisheries, but if you look at it our fish - fisheries is
just as strong now as it was - or even stronger than before. So,
if -- it's just a schematic deal that I feel that if we could work
through, everybody wouldn't be obligated to go and use subsistence.
I know I've talked to a lot of people, they feel that if `I don't
use it - use subsistence and get my name on that permit,' and when
the feds take over or the state and my name is not there, I won't
be able to go out and get a personal use type fishing thing."
Number 207
CO-CHAIRMAN HUDSON said, "In all of our hearings so far the people
that have testified, many people - Native peoples particularly who
have relied upon what we now call `subsistence' and they say `We
don't know where that word came from, we never called it
subsistence' and you just put it in the right words, `it was our
traditional and customary taking of food and game and other
renewable resources.' You know maybe we have attached too much
significance to the name and not enough to the user friendly
management of the resources for the different types of purposes.
So, that's something that we'll take a look at and we'll suggest to
look at it because, in some respects, it may be just a matter of
regulation changes. Certainly -- you know it's really easy for the
fisheries people to say you can only take 25 and that's not
adequate, and it certainly wouldn't be harmful if you were able to
take a 100, for example, in some instances, as long it's used for
other than resale or commercial value."
Number 207
THOMAS SKEEK, JR., Ninth Grade Student, testified via
teleconference from Kake. He informed the committee is speaking on
behalf of his family. Mr. Skeek told the committee members that in
May, 1997, he was cited for illegally snagging an undersized
steelhead out of the same fishing stream that his father has taken
him to since he was five years of age. He stated he feels he
should be able to fish in the same way as his father and
grandfather did as it is tradition. The first catch would have
gone to his grandmother because that is also tradition and they
give their first catch away for good luck. Mr. Skeek said he did
not like how the Department of Fish and Game treated him and his
father as they have fished that same way for years.
Number 230
CO-CHAIRMAN HUDSON asked Mr. Skeek if he received a fine.
Number 231
MR. SKEEK responded he received a $300 fine with $200 suspended,
and probation for one year.
Number 234
CO-CHAIRMAN HUDSON asked him if the fine was for an illegal sized
fish.
Number 240
MR. SKEEK indicated it was also illegally caught - snagged.
CO-CHAIRMAN HUDSON asked Mr. Skeek how he was treated.
MR. SKEEK said he wouldn't say he was treated harsh, but the way he
thinks of it is they should be able to fish they way they want to
so they can catch their crop for the winter. He stated subsistence
should be different than personal use.
Number 256
KATHY HANSEN, Executive Director, United Southeast Alaska
Gillnetters Association, testified via teleconference from Juneau.
She informed the committee members that her organization has not
actually had time to meet as many members are still fishing, but
she said she does have some comments. Ms. Hansen indicated they do
not want the federal government to take over the fisheries as they
believe it will cause kayos and ultimately the only thing that will
get hurt is the resource. She referred to when the federal and
state governments work together, unfortunately the right hand never
seems to know what the left hand is doing. When the resource is
damaged for one year, unfortunately it goes on for several cycles.
She stated her organization feels very strongly about prohibiting
the sale of subsistence caught fish on the commercial market. They
would also like to see that the subsistence priority is triggered
in times of shortage and that it not be a priority all the time.
Ms. Hansen said, "I think right now we already manage to see that
there is fish and other resources for the subsistence use and I
think that would still happen anyways. I think the more drastic
guarantees of fish being there for them need to come in times of
shortage."
MS. HANSEN said she would like to see a definition of "subsistence"
as everybody has a different thought of what subsistence is. She
indicated that maybe one of the ways to help solve this issue is to
figure out what we're talking about. She thanked the committee for
the opportunity to speak.
Number 286
CO-CHAIRMAN HUDSON informed Ms. Hansen that the committee would
appreciate written testimony from her organization when they do
meet.
MS. HANSEN indicated she would forward written testimony to the
committee.
Number 319
MR. PAUL who testified earlier from Sitka indicated he had more
comments. He said, "What I'm wanting to expand on is a question
that I think came from Mr. Dyson from Eagle River. He asked Helen
Drury if there were any species that she can identify that are
gone. The reason that I said `strongly support the federal taking
it over,' you know the troops aren't going to come marching in on
October 2. But an example of what state management has done for
the tribe here in Sitka, this past year the sac roe fishery --
there was strong faction in the tribe that want the tribal and
ANB/ANS to pursue getting a moratorium or shut the sac roe fishery
down because the herring egg is a major part of our diet. Now the
tribe -- this last year the state brought in the Board of Fish and
we had hearings here in Sitka at our Centennial Hall and they told
us that was a major victory getting the Board of Fish to come to
Sitka to meet with us. And then we submitted a proposal for a ten
year moratorium and a proposal for increase the threshold and the
threshold for taking poundage of that sac roe herring roe was twice
what we had submitted. And we were told that was a major victory
too because the Board of Fish gave us a higher poundage and
threshold than we had originally asked for. But then a week after
all these victories that we were told we were given, the sac roe
fishery occurred and the headlines in the newspaper is the
individual that the Board of Fish and the fishery came up with the
highest ever fishing poundage of sac roe that has ever happened.
So, on one hand we're saying that we're cutting back the amount
that can be allowed to be taken, and then a week later the
department of the state or the board or the fish and game comes in
and allows a record catch for that. Now this last year -- usually
this is time of year when you go to a official Native function - a
dinner at ANB/ANS, a SEARHC Board meeting or anything, one of the
major things you're going to have on the table is going to be
herring eggs and this last spring haven't seen that much of it.
You know so that is an example of why I feel that maybe we're
better off with the federal government in there. That's all I
have. Thank you for allowing me to add that."
Number 365
MR. COOSE, who testified earlier, came before the committee to ask
a question. He asked if the committee has access to the testimony
he gave to the Governor's task force concerning the item by item
things on the Governor's proposal. He asked if he needs to
resubmit it to the committee.
CO-CHAIRMAN HUDSON urged him to give it to the committee as they
are a separate body.
Number 372
MR. SKEEK, who testified earlier from Kake, said he believes sports
fishing laws should be different from subsistence laws. He fishes
for food he will eat. Mr. Skeek said he does not catch, kill and
throw away the fish. This saves him a lot of money during the
wintertime and summertime.
Number 302
PETER AMUNDSON came before the committee members to testify. He
explained he is a third generation Alaskan. Mr. Amundson said,
"I've grown up with Bill Williams. We started in the third grade
together in Ketchikan. We fought real hard even in 1945 to
statehood to get along with each other within our own community.
I wish the federal government would fight as hard for our
individual rights as we have fought to save it. There shouldn't be
any discrimination over the animals, and maybe we should think
about categorizing and putting human resource at the head of this
list. If we're going to go against the Marine Mammal Act to make
special circumstances for regions of the state that goes against
our own constitution, statewide, why should the federal government
think of any difference to go against us all on subsistence? If
we're going to divide our resources equally amongst the people,
whether we're Native, non-Native -- I don't like the word non-
Native because I am a native Alaskan, but I consider myself a White
native, not a non-Native. `Non' means you don't exist. I exist.
Me and Bill have fought for the same rights in the same community.
We can remember times when we couldn't shop in the same stores in
Ketchikan and when we couldn't sit in loges in the theater
together. We've overcome this within ourselves. The federal
government didn't help us a bit. This thing has got -- every time
they bring on a new act or a new statute, it's always the people
are getting divided. We're not coming together over this resource
management thing. It's becoming a division, it's pushing us back
into a situation that we've never been in before. I've had a lot
of bad feelings. I went through these university books, the
statutes that are written by people that haven't even been to
Alaska and they're trying to control our lives. The university
came out with this Alaska Review Magazine about 20 years too late.
The federal government does it to us every time. They push us into
circumstances that we've never been into and they try to make a new
statute out of what they've done. Take the people in Metlakatla
over there. They want to do a special thing with them so they put
them out of business. They take American Can Company and turn it
over to Ball Jar and Ball Jar comes in and these people are out
their cannery. They come in and strip all the canning equipment
out of it. This is government move, this isn't people movement,
this is government movement. I don't think the people in Alaska,
the work force, can support government in the direction that they
want to move in. I think government is getting bigger than the
work force can support and they're looking for alternatives to get
out of it. I don't know what else I can say. The resources aren't
being divided equally in the state and I think Sealaska set a bad
precedence in taking their profit and dividing it up amongst the
regional corporations when they knew there are corporations out
there that can't pay back or that can't get this evolving in the
same direction that they got the monies going out to it. I think
we're all equal to federal aid if it's available, but where does
this federal aid keep coming from? If they can't balance the
budget and the state can't balance the budget and they're trying to
drive a wedge in between us, where is the money going to come to
compensate for it? Thank you."
Number 441
CO-CHAIRMAN HUDSON said he believes everyone has testified. He
urged that people who were unable to testify to submit written
testimony to his office. He said he would remind everyone that
there will be additional legislative hearings regarding subsistence
on September 24th in Fairbanks, September 25th in the Mat-Su,
September 26th in Kenai and September 27th in Anchorage. He noted
the public can get the meet times by contacting their local
legislative office or the Ketchikan legislative information office.
He thanked everybody for their testimony and said he thinks it will
be helpful in solving this problem. He noted what probably worries
him more than anything else is management by multiple layers.
ADJOURNMENT
Number 496
CO-CHAIRMAN HUDSON adjourned the House Resources Committee meeting
at 8:00 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|