Legislature(1997 - 1998)
02/28/1998 09:07 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
February 28, 1998
9:07 a.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Bill Hudson, Co-Chairman
Representative Scott Ogan, Co-Chairman
Representative Beverly Masek, Vice Chair (via teleconference)
Representative Ramona Barnes
Representative Fred Dyson
Representative Joe Green
Representative William K. (Bill) Williams (via teleconference)
Representative Irene Nicholia (via teleconference)
Representative Reggie Joule
MEMBERS ABSENT
All members present
OTHER HOUSE MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Jeannette James
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HOUSE BILL NO. 406
"An Act relating to subsistence uses of fish and game."
- HEARD AND HELD
(* First public hearing)
PREVIOUS ACTION
BILL: HB 406
SHORT TITLE: SUBSISTENCE USES OF FISH AND GAME
SPONSOR(S): RESOURCES
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
02/12/98 2312 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
02/12/98 2312 (H) RESOURCES, JUDICIARY, FINANCE
02/17/98 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 124
02/17/98 (H) MINUTE(RES)
02/21/98 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 124
02/21/98 (H) MINUTE(RES)
02/24/98 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 124
02/27/98 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
02/27/98 (H) MINUTE(JUD)
02/28/98 (H) RES AT 9:00 AM CAPITOL 124
WITNESS REGISTER
WILLIAM MILLER
(Address not provided)
Telephone: (907) 882-2695
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided testimony in opposition to HB 406.
CARL ROSIER, President
Territorial Sportsmen Incorporated
P.O. Box 20761
Juneau, Alaska 99802
Telephone: (907) 789-2399
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided testimony on HB 406.
WEIVER IVANOFF (PH)
(Address not provided)
Telephone: (Not provided)
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided testimony in opposition to HB 406.
SIDNEY HUNTINGTON
(Address not provided)
Telephone: (907) 656-1212
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided testimony on HB 406.
POLLOCK SIMON SR.
(Address not provided)
Telephone: (Not provided)
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided testimony on HB 406.
WARNER BERGMAN
(Address not provided)
Telephone: (Not provided)
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided testimony on HB 406.
JIM REARDEN
413 East Lee Drive
Homer Alaska 99603
Telephone: (907) 235-8543
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided testimony on HB 406.
ALBERT
(Address not provided)
Telephone: (Not provided)
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided testimony on HB 406.
SAMSON HENRY
(Address not provided)
Telephone: (Not provided)
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided testimony on HB 406.
GERALD OLDMAN
(Address not provided)
Telephone: (907) 889-2239
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided testimony in opposition to HB 406.
CLIFF JUDKINS, President
Alaska Boating Association;
Member, Local Advisory Board
P.O. Box 871310
Wasilla, Alaska 99687
Telephone: (907) 373-3591
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided testimony in support of HB 406.
NOEL WOODS
P.O. Box 827
Palmer, Alaska 99645
Telephone: (907) 745-3027
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided testimony on HB 406.
ROBERT WILLARD, JR., Representative
Alaska Native Brotherhood - Juneau Camp;
Member, Executive Committee of the Southeast Native Subsistence
Commission
236 3rd Street, Suite A
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Telephone: (907) 586-3706
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided testimony on HB 406.
RICHARD SLATS, Member
Chevak Traditional Council
(Address not provided)
Telephone: (907) 858-7252
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided testimony in opposition to HB 406.
BONNE' THERRIAULT-WOLDSTAD
P.O. Box 56702
North Pole, Alaska 99705
Telephone: (907) 488-0232
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided testimony on HB 406.
GABE SAM, Director of Wildlife and Parks
Tanana Chiefs Conference, Incorporated
122 First Avenue, Suite 600
Fairbanks, Alaska 99701
Telephone: (907) 452-8251
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided testimony in opposition to HB 406.
RALPH SEEKINS, Representative
Alaska Wildlife Conservation Association
(Address not provided)
Telephone: (Not provided)
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided testimony on HB 406.
DICK BISHOP
P.O. Box 73902
Fairbanks, Alaska 99707
Telephone: (907) 455-6191
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided testimony on HB 406.
BRUCE KNOWLES
P.O. Box 873206
Wasilla, Alaska 99687
Telephone: (907) 745-4965
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided testimony on HB 406.
KATIE HURLEY
P.O. Box 870157
Wasilla, Alaska 99687
Telephone: (907) 376-5736
POSITION STATEMENT: Read a letter by Mary Nordale.
ROBERT HALL, Representative
Houston Chamber of Commerce
P.O. Box 871906
Wasilla, Alaska 99687
Telephone: (907) 892-6555
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided testimony on HB 406.
KATHERINE S. MIYASATO, President
Alaska Native Sisterhood - Douglas Camp Number 3
525 North Franklin Street
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Telephone: (907) 586-3942
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided testimony on HB 406.
ERIC MUENCH
P.O. Box 6811
Ketchikan, Alaska 99901
Telephone: (907) 225-5372
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided testimony on HB 406.
BARBARA JANITSCHECK, Vice President of Traditional Services
Maniilaq Association
P.O. Box 256
Kotzebue, Alaska 99752
Telephone: (907) 442-3311
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided testimony in opposition to HB 406.
WARREN LEWIS
(Address not provided)
Telephone: (Not provided)
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided testimony in opposition to HB 406.
TED HAMILTON (PH)
(Address not provided)
Telephone: (Not provided)
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided testimony in opposition to HB 406.
MYRON NANENG, President
Association of Village Council Presidents
Pouch 219
Bethel, Alaska 99559
Telephone: (907) 543-3521
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided testimony in opposition to HB 406.
HUBERT ANGAIAK
P.O. Box 2071
Bethel, Alaska 99559
Telephone: (907) 543-3074
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided testimony in opposition to HB 406.
MICHAEL BOWEN, Chair
Local Advisory Committee
P.O. Box 953
Cordova, Alaska 99574
Telephone: (907) 424-7616
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided testimony on HB 406.
CALEB PUNGOWIYI, Director of Natural Resources
Kawerak, Incorporated
P.O. Box 948
Nome, Alaska 99762
Telephone: (907) 443-5231
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided testimony on HB 406.
PATRICK CHURCH
P.O. Box 2080
Homer, Alaska 99603
Telephone: (907) 235-7388
POSITION STATEMENT: Read a statement by Jack Polster.
JIM SYKES
P.O. Box 696
Palmer, Alaska 99645
Telephone: (907) 338-5551
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided testimony on HB 406.
LOREN CROXTON
P.O. Box 1410
Petersburg, Alaska 99833
Telephone: (907) 772-3622
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided testimony on HB 406.
RON LONG
P.O. Box 2464
Seward, Alaska 99664
Telephone: (907) 224-7068
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided testimony on HB 406.
NICK SZABO
P.O. Box 1633
Kodiak, Alaska 99615
Telephone: (907) 486-3853
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided testimony on HB 406.
MORGAN SOLOMON
P.O. Box 589
Barrow, Alaska 99723
Telephone: (907) 852-7674
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided testimony in opposition to HB 406.
DESA JACOBSSON
236 3rd Street, Number A
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Telephone: (907) 463-3902
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided testimony in opposition to HB 406.
MARY PETE, Director
Division of Subsistence
Department of Fish and Game
P.O. Box 25526
Juneau, Alaska 99802-5526
Telephone: (907) 465-4147
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided testimony on HB 406.
LORETTA BULLARD, President
Kawerak, Incorporated
P.O. Box 948
Nome, Alaska 99762
Telephone: (907) 443-5231
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided testimony in opposition to HB 406.
PERRY MENDENHALL, Member
Sitnasuak Native Corporation Board
P.O. Box 1141
Nome, Alaska 99762
Telephone: (907) 443-2455
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided testimony in opposition to HB 406.
RICHARD ANDREW
P.O. Box 7211
Ketchikan, Alaska 99901
Telephone: (907) 225-2463
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided testimony on HB 406.
KAY ANDREW
P.O. Box 7211
Ketchikan, Alaska 99901
Telephone: (907) 225-2463
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided testimony in support of HB 406.
DONALD WESTLAND
P.O. Box 78833
Ketchikan, Alaska 99901
Telephone: (907) 225-9391
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided testimony in support of HB 406.
MICHAEL PATKOTAK
P.O. Box 610
Barrow, Alaska 99723
Telephone: (907) 852-2152
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided testimony in opposition to HB 406.
DON SHERWOOD, Board Member
Alaska Boating Association
1640 Brink Drive
Anchorage, Alaska 99504
Telephone: (907) 333-6268
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided testimony in support of HB 406.
CHARLES McKEE
P.O. Box 243053
Anchorage, Alaska 99524
Telephone: (Not provided)
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided testimony on HB 406.
DONNA HARRIS-FLEAGLE, Vice President
Tanana Chiefs Conference, Incorporated
Box 33
McGrath, Alaska 99627
Telephone: (907) 524-3385
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided testimony in opposition to HB 406.
JOHN ELUSKA JR., Representative
Shageluk Native Village (IRA)
General Delivery
Shageluk, Alaska 99665
Telephone: (907) 473-8239
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided testimony in opposition to HB 406.
PHILLIP ARROW, Elder
Shageluk Native Village (IRA)
General Delivery
Shageluk, Alaska 99665
Telephone: (907) 473-8239
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided testimony in opposition to HB 406.
BART
(Address not provided)
Telephone: (Not provided)
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided testimony on HB 406.
DALE BONDURANT
H.C. 1, Box 1197
Soldotna, Alaska 99669
Telephone: (907) 262-0818
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided testimony on HB 406.
SELINA EVERSON, Subsistence Chair
Alaska Native Sisterhood
(Address not provided)
Telephone: (Not provided)
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided testimony on HB 406.
SHARON LEE
(Address not provided)
Telephone: (Not provided)
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided testimony on HB 406.
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 98-20, SIDE A
Number 0001
CO-CHAIRMAN SCOTT OGAN called the House Resources Standing
Committee meeting to order at 9:07 a.m. Members present at the
call to order were Representatives Hudson, Ogan, Dyson, and Green.
Representatives Joule and Barnes arrived at 9:08 a.m. and 10:30
a.m., respectively. Representatives Masek, Williams and Nicholia
joined the meeting via teleconference at approximately 9:25 a.m.,
9:35 a.m. and 10:45 a.m., respectively.
HB 406 - SUBSISTENCE USES OF FISH AND GAME
CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN announced the only order of business today would
be House Bill No. 406, "An Act relating to subsistence uses of fish
and game."
Number 0110
CO-CHAIRMAN BILL HUDSON stated it is his understanding that
Representatives Williams, Nicholia and Joule either are now or
intend to be on-line via the teleconference today.
Number 0255
CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN referred to a handout titled, "Summary Points - HB
406," and read the following:
"1. Establishes that the ability to take fish and game
for personal and family use for sustenance is a
fundamental right under the Constitution of the State of
Alaska.
"2. Establishes that the harvest of fish and game for
personal and family use for sustenance by residents is
the highest and best use of fish and game.
"3. Authorizes the Boards of Fisheries and Game to
establish fish and game dependent use areas where
dependence on fish and game for personal and family use
for sustenance is the principal characteristic of the
economy and way of life of the area.
"4. Authorizes the Board of Fisheries or Board of Game,
after determining that a shortage exists, to establish a
preference for fish and game dependent uses.
"5. In times of shortage, the Boards may require that
the flesh or meat of fish and game must be consumed
within the region where the fish or game was taken.
"6. Defines a dependent fish and game user as one who:
possesses a $5 resident hunting, trapping and
sport fishing license
is dependent on fish and game for personal and
family use for sustenance or has no
alternative means of sustenance or has decided
to adopt a fish and game dependent life style.
has consumed a variety of species of fish and
game as decided by the Boards
has shared fish and game with minimum number
of households as established by the Boards
"7. Provides for local advisory committee participation
in the individual eligibility for a preference within
their area.
"8. Establishes five regional boards consisting of nine
members appointed by the governor and confirmed by the
legislature.
"9. Requires regulation proposal to go through local
advisory committees and newly established regional
boards.
"10. The regional boards are required to give deference
to local advisory committee recommendations and the
statewide Boards of Fisheries and Game are required to
give deference to recommendations of the regional boards.
Several criteria are established to guide when and how
recommendations of the advisory committees and regional
boards can be overturned or rejected.
"11. Provides for non-commercial bartering.
"12. Provides a two-year transitional period."
REPRESENTATIVE BEVERLY MASEK announced she was present via
teleconference.
Number 0430
CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN stated the bill is based on the sustained yield
principle - Article VIII, Section 4 of the Constitution of the
State of Alaska - that reads as follows:
"Fish, forests, wildlife, grasslands, and all other
replenishable resources belonging to the State shall be
utilized, developed, and maintained on the sustained
yield principle, subject to preferences among beneficial
uses."
CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN stated the key element of the citation is "subject
to preferences among beneficial uses." In times of shortage, when
a resource cannot be sustained, a preference can be given among
beneficial uses. This is where he would like to see the discussion
remain today. It is in the state and people's best interest. A
discussion on equal protection and common use would divide the
state, and not provide the necessary healing amongst the people.
CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN announced today's hearing is live with radio
station KOTZ in Kotzebue.
Number 0680
WILLIAM MILLER testified via teleconference in Dot Lake. The
village of Dot Lake is one of the many villages in the upper Tanana
dependent on the natural renewable resources in the area, not only
for subsistence, but for the cultural and conditional benefits they
provide as well. The committee substitute does not come close to
meeting the needs, much less satisfying the requirements of The
Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA). He
wonders why no public testimony has been taken or allowed until
today. "Why didn't you have public testimony on the Governor's bill
before killing it in committee?" he asked. Even though it most
likely would not have worked, it is a lot closer than this bill.
This bill does not give a rural priority, a major part of ANILCA.
The "eat-where-it's-shot" portion does not fit the traditional and
cultural ways of the rural villages. The needs-based system also
does not address traditional and cultural ways. He wondered what
would be the cost to the state to determine these individual
subsistence needs based on the requirement for statements to be
sent from the advisory committees to the regional advisory boards
to the Boards of Fisheries and Game. In addition, by the time all
of the required actions were taken, the season would be over or the
individual would be dead from a lack of food. The cost would be
prohibited for processing the signed and certified written
statements. He wondered why the word "subsistence" has been
replaced with the word "sustenance." "Does the word 'subsistence'
scare the people or does it make you think of all the time and
money that has been wasted avoiding this very important rural
issue?" he asked. Would not subsistence also be a beneficial use
under the state constitution and, therefore, meet the requirements
stated earlier? he further asked. The committee substitute was not
made available locally until he requested a copy of it on February
26, 1998. He hopes in the future the bill will be available with
enough time to make comments, especially before it goes to the
floor of the House of Representatives. After a quick review of it,
however, 16.16.020 would be almost impossible to enforce or enact.
He wonders whether all of the criteria would have to be met under
the subsection or just certain ones. The requirement for a person
to be dependent on fish and game for personal and family use and
the sharing of fish and game resources with a minimum number of
households contradicts itself. The bill does nothing to satisfy
the cultural and traditional subsistence needs of the rural
villages. The first thing he visualized when he got the bill was
a hawk swooping down to eat a small shrew, then two shrews appeared
and the hawk ate them. This progressed until the hawk was too fat
to fly and the shrews killed the hawk. He hopes that there will be
future opportunities to testify on the bill after given a chance to
digest it.
CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN replied there will be future opportunities to
testify. There are two more committees of referral - Judiciary and
Finance. For the record he noted that there has been over 500
people who testified and 60 hours of hearings, including at least
10 hours by the Administration on the Governor's subsistence task
force proposal. There is not a great deal of difference between
the proposal and the bill entered. Therefore, the decision not to
hear the bill was based on the overwhelming testimony in opposition
to the task force proposal in both rural and urban Alaska, though
admittedly for different reasons. He intends to make changes to
the proposed committee substitute based on the public testimony.
Number 1085
CARL ROSIER, President, Territorial Sportsmen Incorporated (TSI),
a Juneau-based outdoor recreational organization. The TSI has been
active in fish and wildlife conservation and allocation issues
since 1947. Our membership numbers approximately 2,000 people
mostly from Juneau and Douglas. He has personally been involved
with the management of Alaska's fish and game resources since 1955.
His last job was as commissioner of the Department of Fish and Game
under former Governor Walter J. Hickel. The TSI is pleased to see
the legislature once again making the effort to fairly resolve the
controversy surrounding the subsistence use of Alaska's fish and
game resources. The committee substitute is a good start. The TSI
is quite concerned of the Governor's proposal because it would not
return management of fish and game to the state, but merely give
the authority to implement a state system under the watchful eye of
the federal agencies, and ultimately the federal courts in cases of
dispute. The proposed implementations were not balanced and would
continue to pit one Alaskan against another. A legal analysis of
the TSI indicates that the state's right to manage would receive
very limited protection with great discretion afforded to a federal
judge. The TSI, in seeking a solution, has operated under several
principles: conservation of the fish and game resources must be
assured in whatever system is ultimately adopted; the basic human
right to take fish and game for food must be protected; Alaska's
constitutional guarantee of equal standing and common use of
resources must be protected; a clear linkage to ANILCA changes in
the event of a limited constitutional amendment to narrow a
preference to true subsistence users; and the opposition of any
harvest preference based on group criteria such as location,
culture, race, or ethnicity.
MR. ROSIER further stated, of the four communities excluded from
the current subsistence priority, according to United States census
data, Fairbanks has the lowest median household income at $32,033,
while Juneau has the highest at $47,924. There are 197 communities
lower than Fairbanks and 120 communities higher on a statewide
basis. There are 37 communities above Juneau on a statewide basis
of which most are eligible for subsistence - Petersburg, Eyak, Lake
Minchumina, Barrow, Chignik Lagoon, Unalaska, King Salmon, Naknek
and Polk Inlet. These are just a few examples of unjustified
discrimination. Petersburg has a higher median household income
than all four communities yet it qualifies as rural. Nanwalek
qualifies for a subsistence priority with a median household income
at $46,563, while Hope at $17,250, and Moose Pass at $22,083 do
not. Copper Center with a median household income at $34,643,
Cantwell at $44,000, and McKinley Park at $40,313 qualify for a
priority, while Talkeetna at $11,991 does not. Petersburg has a
higher median household income, a lower percentage of residents
below the poverty level, and a lower percentage of unemployed than
Juneau, while it enjoys a subsistence priority and Juneau does not.
Unalaska has a $12,000 higher median household income, lower
unemployment, and a lower percentage of adults not working than
Anchorage, while it enjoys a subsistence priority and Anchorage
does not. Naknek has a higher median household income, lower
unemployment, and a lower percentage below the poverty level than
Anchorage, while it qualifies for subsistence and Anchorage does
not. Major communities like Kodiak Station, Wrangell, Haines,
Bethel, Kotzebue, Sitka, Dillingham, Nome, Kodiak, Cordova, Craig,
Petersburg, Unalaska and Barrow all qualify for subsistence under
the rural designation scheme and yet have a higher median household
income than Fairbanks. Kodiak has a higher median household
income, a lower percentage of people unemployed, and a lower
percentage of residents below the poverty line than Anchorage or
Fairbanks. Petersburg has a higher median household income, a
lower percentage of residents below the poverty line, and a lower
percentage unemployed than all four of the communities excluded
from subsistence. In conclusion, the committee substitute
incorporates some excellent concepts such as the personal use
preference for food, reasonable opportunity, and individual
criteria for determining dependency in times of a resource
shortage. The TSI has some difficulty with the bill's provisions
to implement the concepts, but stand ready to work with the
committee for a solution. In the final analysis, TSI strongly
believes that the people and resources of Alaska would be far
better off under a non-incumbered state management program. The
TSI also believes that whatever the final solution arrived at by
the legislature, if a constitutional amendment is involved, state
residents must be afforded the information to determine whether
they are in or out, prior to being asked to vote.
REPRESENTATIVE BILL WILLIAMS announced he was present via
teleconference.
Number 1510
REPRESENTATIVE FRED DYSON asked Mr. Rosier what does the state need
to do to get out from under federal court supervision and micro-
management of its fish and game.
Number 1521
MR. ROSIER replied there needs to be changes in the federal law
(ANILCA). There needs to be an Alaskan solution then ultimately go
after the federal law. If we do nothing but comply with ANILCA, we
would be in the same box that we are in now.
Number 1548
CO-CHAIRMAN HUDSON stated Mr. Rosier goes back a long time with the
subsistence issue and other issues concerning management of natural
resources with the state and federal governments. He asked Mr.
Rosier who should make the determination of what communities are in
or out, the boards or the legislature, for example.
Number 1595
MR. ROSIER replied in his view the standards for selection should
be made at the legislative level. The agencies should also be
involved to help make the determination. Having looked at the
board and advisory committee systems for some 40 years, he has not
seen a board or advisory committee that could deal with the issue
on a fair and equitable basis.
Number 1634
CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN asked Mr. Rosier whether he believes the approach
of dealing with Article VIII, Section 4, "Sustained Yield," rather
than Article VIII, Section 3, "Common Use," is the appropriate
place to have this type of discussion.
Number 1645
MR. ROSIER replied it is hard to say because he is not an attorney.
However, his leanings are toward that approach.
Number 1690
WEIVER IVANOFF (PH) testified via teleconference in Unalakleet. He
was raised in the area and has been involved in fishery issues
since 1980 with the Board of Game. He helped form the Southern
Norton Sound Advisory Committee. He is speaking in opposition to
HB 406. The approach is inconsistent with Title VIII of ANILCA.
It does not recognize the roles of subsistence uses - physical,
economical, traditional and cultural. The administration of the
needs-based permitting system would be time consuming, unworkable
and cost prohibitive. He does not see how this system could lead
to future resumption of state management. It does not meet
ANILCA's rural priority or change the state constitution. It
pretty much guarantees the federal takeover on December 1, 1998.
Historically, the Boards of Fisheries and Game take a look at
certain areas of Alaska and make cuts to subsistence users. It is
the people who live the closest to the resources that get cut when
a resource is impacted in an area. The people who depend on the
resources to make money are the last ones to get cut. The people
who depend on the resources to put food on the table are the first
ones to get cut. The personal-use basis would continue that
concept causing a lot of distrust and a lack of confidence in the
present ongoing system.
Number 1862
SIDNEY HUNTINGTON testified via teleconference in Galena. He was
born in 1914 and has lived in the Galena area his entire life. He
has been using fish and wildlife as his main source of livelihood.
He commends Representative Ogan for his efforts as well as other
legislators and governors who have worked on the issue for the past
20 years. However, after all of this time the issue has not been
solved. The time is coming to solve it once and for all. He has
followed what Ted Stevens and Frank Murkowski have said in terms of
federal management if we do not pass a rural preference. He spent
almost 20 years on the Board of Game dealing with the federal
government (feds). It has never kept its promise made to any
Indian organization, but it has made good threats. And now it is
threatening to take over the subsistence management of fish and
wildlife, and it will unless we have a rural preference for
subsistence. House Bill 406 does not provide that rural
preference. If HB 406 passes and we do nothing else, we will be
forcing the feds' hand and it will take over the management. We
cannot let this happen. We here in Alaska are small potatoes
compared to the number of people in the Lower Forty-Eight with
higher profile issues. People outside of the state will have more
power over management of our wildlife resources than we will. We
must be able to manage our own resources. We lived with a rural
preference before McDowell and we can live with it again. It
worked then because the Board of Game was involved in making the
management decisions. There is nothing to be afraid of with Alaska
making the decisions. There is much to be afraid of with the
interests of the Lower Forty-Eight making the decisions. Some
urban people think they will lose a lot with a rural preference,
but they will not. Subsistence use of our resources is a very
small part of the fish and game taken. However, if the feds take
over management, urban and rural people will stand to lose
everything. Millions of dollars and thousands of hours of work
have been wasted on this issue with little or no results. Let's
solve the big problem by allowing the people to vote on a rural
preference, then we can work to solve the smaller problems and go
back to management of our state's wildlife resources by the people
of Alaska. The only way to solve the issue is to get it out of
politics. We have got to work together to solve the issue. We all
have selfish desires, but we can all compromise. This is an issue
of compromise.
Number 2021
CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN stated we have been talking about this issue for
20 years and have been hung up on the rural priority. Most people
do not have a problem in a time of shortage for those that truly
depend on the resource to have a preference. We have authority
under the state constitution to give a preference. He asked Mr.
Huntington whether he would be willing to shift the discussion off
of the common use clause and over to the sustained yield clause of
the state constitution.
Number 2056
MR. HUNTINGTON replied, "Okay." But, we almost lost certain
fishery resources when the feds managed them before Alaska became
a state. Managers of the state's wildlife resources can maintain
a sustained yield. The scientists know their business, but spend
all of their time on environmental issues and subsistence. Sixty-
five percent of the time when he was on the Board of Game was spent
trying to solve subsistence issues and dealing with the
environmentalists.
Number 2103
CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN stated he believes it is because the talk has been
about compromising the equal protections.
Number 2122
CO-CHAIRMAN HUDSON asked Mr. Huntington whether the term "times of
shortage" can be defined in terms of the resources or food on the
table.
Number 2154
MR. HUNTINGTON replied under federal management there will be
shortages of resources more so than under state management. He
cannot remember a time when he was on the Board of Game that it did
not apply everything towards those living in rural Alaska.
Therefore, with good screening and good management, there is a 90
percent chance of success under the sustained yield principle.
Number 2260
POLLOCK SIMON SR. testified via teleconference in Allakaket. We
used to have a good lifestyle here with the firefighting season and
trapping in the winter. Now, that they have let all the fires burn
without firefighting much, banned lake-hold traps, and outlawed
snares, it is making it tougher for us in winter because we live
off of the land. Here in Allakaket we are far off the road and
live a subsistence lifestyle. We also do not like dual management.
It would not be very good for us because neither agency comes up
with enough money for good management to investigate wanton waste,
for example. We have had dual management for several years and the
legislature has not done anything. It still looks like it will be
a few more years before it does anything. He hopes the subsistence
dilemma will be solved pretty soon for the rural people who depend
on the land. He is starting to lose his trust in the legislators
because they have not solved the problem and he is not sure what it
will be like in a few years.
Number 2365
WARNER BERGMAN testified via teleconference in Allakaket. We live
about 75 percent off of the land. Right now, we have a lot of
competition with outside hunters for the resources. We would like
to see the issue solved with a rural preference because we have to
live with the decisions made in Juneau. Look at Indian country, he
said. It is getting to the point where we are frustrated with the
decisions made by the legislators.
Number 2411
CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN asked Mr. Bergman whether he wants a full-time
priority, or could he live with a priority/preference in a time of
shortage.
Number 2441
MR. BERGMAN replied for us in Allakaket we would rather have a
full-time preference.
TAPE 98-20, SIDE B
Number 0000
MR. REARDEN testified via teleconference in Homer. He has been
involved in fish and game management in various ways in Alaska for
50 years - a fishery patrol agent, head of the Department of
Wildlife Management at the University of Alaska, an area biologist
for commercial fisheries for the Department of Fish and Game in
Cook Inlet, and a member of the Board of Fish and Game, the Board
of Game, and in 1976 President Ford appointed him to the National
Advisory Committee on Oceans and Atmospheres. He commends the
House Resources committee for putting forth this proposed committee
substitute. He endorses the statements made by Carl Rosier. The
proposed law would ensure that those dependent on fish and game for
food would have every opportunity to take those resources. It does
not violate the rights of any Alaskan and establishes a priority
when it is needed - in a time of shortage - instead of a full-time
priority. It definitely protects rural residents who must have
fish and game in order to eat. It achieves the goal that Congress
had in mind when it set the rural priority to ensure that rural
Alaskan Natives have every opportunity to take fish and game for
food. Rural and urban citizens are treated alike, a giant step
ahead. The resource would be managed under the constitutionally
required sustained yield principle subject to preferences among
beneficial uses. The regional boards, as proposed, would give
citizens more say on regulations because they would be talking to
their neighbors. It would also remove from the Boards of Fisheries
and Game the task of attempting to meet the unrealistic goals of
the rural priority, the most important aspect of the bill. For 20
years the Board of Game has spent more time attempting to comply
with subsistence law than scientifically managing the resources.
The board has functioned as a quasi-welfare agency instead of a
scientific game management agency. In 1975 he was opposed to
splitting the Board of Fish and Game into two boards, but he was
wrong. It turned out to be a good move. It reduced meeting times
and increased efficiency. The regional boards would allow more
input by citizens who are far removed from Anchorage, Fairbanks and
Juneau where most of the board meetings take place. They could
reduce the work loads of the two primary boards. However, to
accomplish that, the regional boards should have regulatory
authority along with supervision by the main boards. They would be
more efficient with a membership of seven rather than nine. The
old Board of Fish and Game increased until there were 12 members
and with each increase efficiency dropped. There may be flaws in
the proposed committee substitute that will not show up until given
a try, but the concept is excellent. It addresses the major
problems that have beset the state for 20 years. If it is passed
into law at least Alaskans can fine tune it. It would not,
however, remove the rural priority of the federal government. But,
the Alaskan congressional delegation has said when there is a
consensus, they will support it. Thus, if the legislature can
develop support for this Alaskan solution, there would be a
consensus so that our people in Washington, D.C. would have to
support it and present it to Congress as a substitute. He strongly
supports the concept of the bill, as well as the legal challenge
filed by the Legislative Council committee. If we change our
constitution to conform to federal law, we will have gained
nothing. We will still be under the thumb of the federal
government and forever having to comply with a rural priority, a
provision that splits Alaska. There will be no healing if we
kowtow to the federal government and change our equal rights
clause. We will have to live forever with the divisiveness that
the law has created. If the bill and lawsuit do not succeed, only
then should we consider changing the constitution. Let's give
Alaskans every chance to solve the problem before making an
unalterable decision that would leave us forever under the thumb of
the federal government. Alaska's legislators, by developing this
proposed solution and by filing a lawsuit, at last are taking the
action that has been needed for the past 20 years.
Number 0251
REPRESENTATIVE MASEK wondered where the money would come from to
support the regional boards. The state has been putting some money
into the subsistence advisory committees, but there is not a whole
lot of money out there. She asked Mr. Rearden to comment.
Number 0276
MR. REARDEN replied sure money is a problem. But, compared to the
value of the resources and the problems we are facing, the money
would become available. He is not a legislator and he does not
know where the money comes from, but money is spent on advisory
committees all over the state, and for meetings that extend for
months for the Boards of Fisheries and Game. Thus, there would be
some savings.
Number 0337
ALBERT testified via teleconference in Allakaket. He asked whether
the bill opens subsistence up to everyone.
Number 0402
CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN replied, "No." It establishes a criteria, in a
time of shortage, for those with a history or make a decision or
have no other means to provide food for their family.
Number 0420
ALBERT stated because of the low economy in Alaska the Native
people and the rural villages depend a lot on subsistence. But now
everyone goes hunting for moose along with the Native people for
subsistence. He thinks subsistence should have priority. It is
time for the legislators to understand that the Native people in
the villages try to put food on the table when the freezer runs
out. During moose hunting season there are planes, boats, and
trucks coming into the area. We're just having an open season on
the animals. We've got to control our animals in the state. This
is the last frontier. We're going to run out and be like the Lower
Forty-Eight.
Number 0490
CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN stated the bill would give a preference to those
who live in a dependent use area in a time of shortage to protect
their lifestyle.
Number 0511
SAMSON HENRY testified via teleconference in Allakaket.
Subsistence is a way of life. It is a religious thing. It puts
food on the table. A lot of people do not like to get money from
the government, they would rather live off of the land. Everybody
should oppose HB 406.
Number 0564
CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN stated in a time of shortage the criteria would
protect the people who live that type of lifestyle.
MR. BERGMAN stated now that he has read HB 406 he opposes it.
Number 0621
GERALD OLDMAN testified via teleconference in Hughes. He opposes
the bill. He opposes the income requirements because there is 70
percent unemployment in rural villages. He opposes the needs-based
system. What we harvest is what we need. He opposes opening up
subsistence to everybody because the non-Natives are only after the
racks. He opposes cultural and traditional rights being eliminated
because he uses caribou and moose skins for parkas and other
clothing. In addition, a moose count done by the area biologist
about 12 miles above and below Hughes has shown that the population
is on the decline. The bill is not going to really help us.
Number 0686
REPRESENTATIVE JOE GREEN asked Mr. Oldman whether the decline in
the moose population is caused by hunters or other predators.
Number 0696
MR. OLDMAN replied the moose count was done in November. He cannot
answer the question because it could have been done by both.
Number 0724
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN stated the legislation would only apply in a
time of shortage. He asked Mr. Oldman whether something should be
done to eliminate predators other than man first, before barring
other Alaskans from taking game.
Number 0746
MR. OLDMAN replied, "Yes." But, there needs to be a study done
first.
Number 0758
CO-CHAIRMAN HUDSON asked Mr. Oldman what would be his reaction to
setting up a system that would require an application for a permit
based on income in order to be eligible for subsistence hunting or
fishing.
Number 0792
MR. OLDMAN replied there is already 70 percent unemployment in most
of the rural villages.
Number 0818
CO-CHAIRMAN HUDSON asked Mr. Oldman what would be the reaction to
applying for a subsistence permit.
Number 0843
MR. OLDMAN replied they would have to apply for it.
CO-CHAIRMAN HUDSON asked Mr. Oldman how he felt about it.
MR. OLDMAN replied he would support it.
Number 0862
CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN asked Mr. Oldman, if there is a shortage in his
area and there is not enough to go around, does he think that the
people who do not have jobs should have a priority over the people
who have jobs.
Number 0871
MR. OLDMAN replied, "Yes."
CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN stated the bill is attempting to protect those
that have a true need for subsistence.
Number 0928
CLIFF JUDKINS, President, Alaska Boating Association (ABA); Member,
Local Advisory Board, testified via teleconference in Mat-Su. The
ABA pretty much endorses what Sidney Huntington, Carl Rosier and
Jim Rearden said earlier. Most of the members of the ABA are
hunters and fishers living in both urban and rural areas, and many
hunt and fish for food. He commended the time, effort, and courage
for putting forth the bill. The ABA supports its intent and hopes
that it will not be rushed through the legislative process. The
more people that review and comment on it, there is a better chance
of gaining the confidence of the many Alaskans that are frustrated
over the subsistence issue. The ABA feels that Alaska can
equitably and fairly deal with the subsistence needs of all
Alaskans within the framework of the state constitution. The ABA
is solidly against amending the constitution concerning the
allocation of fish and wildlife resources. The ABA feels that HB
406 provides an alternative solution to a constitutional amendment
and the ever looming federal takeover. The ABA thanks Co-Chairman
Ogan.
Number 1014
NOEL WOODS testified via teleconference in Mat-Su. Predation by
bears and wolves is not considered enough as part of the problem in
HB 406. He has been hunting since 1945. Back in the 1950s, the
federal wildlife people instituted a wolf control program that
eliminated wolves by 80 to 90 percent. He used to never see a wolf
on foot and now it is common to see one. He is concerned about
usurping the power of the regional boards by using the language
"shall" defer to the advisory committee. He suggested using "may"
instead of "shall." The bill is on the right track. He opposes
amending the state constitution.
Number 1155
ROBERT WILLARD, JR., Representative, Alaska Native Brotherhood -
Juneau Camp; Member, Executive Committee of the Southeast Native
Subsistence Commission. He is from Angoon. When speaking of
subsistence, you must look at the various aspects of what you are
affecting. Southeast's population is set at 74,118. Of that
number, 14,481 are Alaskan Natives. The urban population of
Southeast (Juneau and Ketchikan) is set at 44,252. There are 5,628
Alaskan Natives that live in urban Southeast. In rural Southeast
there are 29,876 people. Rural Southeast is comprised of 20,331
non-Natives and 8,851 Natives. That means rural Natives in
Southeast are outnumbered by approximately 3 to 1. So when the
Alaska population is reported, the news media, and people in
responsible positons, make it sound as if only Alaskan Natives live
in rural Alaska. On a statewide basis, rural Natives are
outnumbered by non-Natives by approximately 5 to 1. So when you
hear a rural subsistence preference, it is not a Native preference,
therefore, it is not a racial issue. Also, on a statewide basis
subsistence users take less than 4 percent of the wild, renewable
resources. The following is the Southeast harvest of salmon on an
annual basis for Southeast: commercial harvest took 29,880,800,
sports/personal took 158,800, and subsistence took 40,100. Also,
on a statewide basis, there are 38,865 Alakan Natives that are
denied subsistence opportunities because they reside in an urban
area. This is from the records of the Alaska Department of Fish
and Game.
MR. WILLARD, JR further stated to address the rural preference in
Title VIII of ANILCA, Congress intented to invoke a rural
preference only when the resource was declining. Since 1980 when
ANILCA was implemented, the rural preference has never been
invoked. There has never been a time when commercial, sport, or
personal use were closed and only subsistence harvest was allowed
to continue. When an opening occurs in Southeast, it occurs in
common. In the event of a rural preference, such a preference
would apply to both Natives and non-Natives. We would have it no
other way. And while we are not authorized to speak for the non-
Native communites of Point Baker, Port Alexander, Meyers Chuck,
Coffman Cove and others, we do look after their subsistence needs.
Of primary interest to the Southeast Alaksan Native tribes is the
subsistence harvest and uses of the cultures. Thus, any allocation
must include an amount for cultural purposes in addition to family
needs. The subsistence fight to us is known as cultural survival
for our children and grandchildren. The next generation is
foremost in our minds and our endeavors. In the final analysis, it
is our cultural existence that is imperil when we examine the
proposed legislation. If HB 406 is enacted and implemented, it
would sound the death knell of the subsistence lifestyle and
culture that Congress intended to protect.
MR. WILLARD, JR. addressed Section 16.16.020(1) - income
requirements - and read a statement by Congressman Morris K. Udall,
Chairman of the Interior and Insular Affairs Committee, who
marshalled Title VIII of ANILCA until it passed:
"The policy also requires that regualtory 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 the
Alaskan Native Cultures."
MR. WILLARD, JR. further stated Chairman Udall also addressed the
issue of individual criteria. He said that subsistence opportunity
must be on a community basis, not on an individual basis. If done
on an individual basis, it would have a destructive effect on the
knowledge that keeps our cultural existence alive after thousands
of years. We have a tribal obligation to pass the knowledge of our
subsistence lifestyle on to the next generation.
MR. WILLARD, JR. further stated, in regards to the local adivosry
committees, Congress saw the value of having persons serving in
these capacities because of their personal knowledge of local
conditions. We do not feel that a person who has applied for a
subsistence permit needs to go through the process of attaining
approval from the local advisory committee, regional advisory
council, Board of Game, Board of Fisheries, or whatever other
criteria the boards may adopt.
MR. WILLARD, JR. further stated that changing the term
"subsistence" to "sustenance" is wrong, and the term "customary and
tradition" should remain in state legislation.
MR. WILLARD, JR. further stated that Title VIII of ANILCA has been
misinterpred from the very outset of the meaning of a rural
preference. Federal and state managers believe that it means
subsistence eligibility. As a result, Juneau and Ketchikan are
determined to be ineligible. William P. Horn, Assistant Secretary
of the Interior, indicated that Juneau, Ketchikan, Anchorage and
Fairbanks would be eligible for subsistence, albeit without a
preference when the resource declines. This means that the Native
children born in 1975 or around that period grew up without
knowledge of where to fish; where to hunt for deer, seal, ducks, or
geese; where to dig for clams; and where to pick blueberries,
salmon berries, thimble berries, or other berries.
MR. WILLARD, JR. stated, in conclusion, that HB 406 as written
would certainly destroy the cultures of Southeast Native tribes.
If it is your intent to destroy our cultures, then you should say
so publically. We ask that the people be allowed to vote.
Number 1805
CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN stated it is not his intent to destroy anybody's
culture. In fact, he has deep respect for other cultures. He is
simply trying to protect those that truly depend on the resources
in a time of shortage which would be people from Mr. Willard, Jr.'s
culture.
Number 1844
MR. WILLARD, JR. explained he will be presenting to Co-Chairman
Ogan a sectional analysis of the bill.
CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN replied he looks forward to receiving it.
Number 1852
REPRESENTATIVE DYSON asked Mr. Willard, Jr. whether the people he
represents are getting enough fish and game to satisfy their needs
of traditional and customary uses.
MR. WILLARD JR. replied, "I believe so."
Number 1887
REPRESENTATIVE DYSON asked Mr. Willard, Jr. whether it is possible,
in a time of plenty, to satisfy their needs of traditional and
customary uses under personal use/sport hunting and fishing
provisions of the state.
MR. WILLARD, JR. replied even though we do not particulary care for
the word "subsistence," we would prefer a suppression between
personal and sport uses, and would prefer it in terms of
subsistence use.
REPRESENTATIVE DYSON asked Mr. Willard, Jr. whether it is possible
to get the resources that are necessary for customary and
traditional uses and cultural reasons in a time of plenty.
MR. WILLARD, JR. replied, "Yes."
Number 1956
REPRESENTATIVE DYSON stated according to Mr. Willard, Jr.'s
testimony the cultures would be destroyed, but that does not appear
it would happen, unless the resources were destroyed and no one had
access.
Number 1984
MR. WILLARD, JR. stated there is no reference to cultural
dependence in the bill which would affect our ability to come
forward as required by our culture. Cultural uses are in addition
to family needs. When we harvest for our family needs, we also
take into consideration what will be needed for the fall and
culturally.
Number 2046
REPRESENTATIVE DYSON replied he referred to a time of shortage.
MR. WILLARD, JR. stated the bill would limit harvest to family
consumption with no consideration for cultural uses.
REPRESENTATIVE DYSON replied if there is lots of fish and game then
there would be lots for all of the needs.
Number 2104
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN stated he is concerned that the concepts are
being defined in a time of shortage. He asked Mr. Willard, Jr.
what would be a cultural use that would be significant to the stock
that would not be a sustenance type of use.
Number 2168
MR. WILLARD, JR. replied in the event of the death of a tribal
memeber, the deceased's favorite food is fed to the survivors at
the cermony.
Number 2256
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN replied, according to the legislators that he
has talked to, that would not be an imposition to be considered as
part of a preference. He asked Mr. Willard, Jr. whether feeding
fish to dogs as opposed to people would be considered part of the
lifestyle.
MR. WILLARD, JR. replied not necessarily in Southeast.
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN stated certainly a small use for the family is
commendable. He wondered how far cultural use would extend into
the resource use.
Number 2320
MR. WILLARD JR. replied it would not extend siginificantly.
Number 2341
REPRESENTATIVE JEANNETTE JAMES said she is concerned because the
rural priority leaves out a lot of Natives and eliminates their
cultural things. In reference to the death cermony, there is
another place in state law that allows for the taking of animals
for a death ceramony. She asked Mr. Willard, Jr. whether he
believes that it is worthwhile for the legislature to proceed in a
method to make it fair for all Natives no matter where they....
TAPE 98-21, SIDE A
Number 0000
MR. WILLARD, JR. replied there was action taken by the Board of
Game in Fairbanks that allowed for the harvesting of game for
unexpected cultural purposes. It must be reported 15 days after
the event. We do appreciate the legislature addressing the problem
for the urban Natives.
Number 0086
REPRESENTATIVE DYSON stated he lives near the largest Native
village in Alaska - Eklutna. They have been there for several
hundreds of years and are excluded from their traditional ways of
making a living. They want a resolution that would allow them the
chance to continue to pursue their cultural and traditional ways of
raising their children.
REPRESENTATIVE IRENE NICHOLIA announced she was present via
teleconference.
CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN announced for the record that Representative
Barnes joined the meeting quite some time ago.
Number 0213
RICHARD SLATS, Member, Chevak Traditional Council, testified via
teleconference in Chevak. He comes illprepared because of the
short notice for this hearing. The bill does not come as a
surprise for most rural residents because of its intent, but
because there was not adequate notice for response from bush
Alaska. Most bush Alaskans use their weekends for hunting and
fishing to feed their families, if they are lucky enough to find
work during the week. The rural priority should remain because
subsistence is a way of life for rural residents. Without it, we
will cease to exist. Urbanites have resources readily available -
McDonalds, Carrs, and Safeway - for their sustenance. The bill
calls for a system to demonstrate dependence on fish and game. He
is pretty sure that this will develop into a system like green
cards for aliens. In today's world and the economy such as it is,
one has to find work or relocate in an effort to support his
family. As a result, Natives will be split up into those that are
eligible and those that are ineligible, when the ones that are
ineligible come from the same mother, father, community, speak the
same tongue, and live the same lifestyle. To prove how much fish
or game an individual consumes would be almost impossible to
enforce. He also wonders whether the guiding principles of the
Alaska Federation of Natives (AFN) subsistence summit were
considered when writing the bill. The guiding principles recognize
the customary and traditional uses of the resources which basically
separates the difference between "subsistence" and "sustenance."
The Native people are up to their necks on assaults of their very
being. This bill should not go any further than where it is today.
The author of the bill reminds him of a modern day Custer. When
his rights are limited as a Native, he will probably be made into
an outlaw in order to feed his own family, and that is where he
will bury his heart.
CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN stated the bill has been available for well over
a week.
Number 0714
REPRESENTATIVE RAMONA BARNES stated it always strikes her when
there is testimony in regards to feeding ones family at outlets
like McDonalds in the urban areas. She asked Mr. Slats whether the
sustenance or subsistence needs of urban residents who do not have
the funds to go to McDonalds are any less of a need than those in
rural areas. The largest Native community in the state of Alaska
resides in Anchorage.
Number 0788
MR. SLATS replied he is concerned because more times than not these
types of things snowball on and on. There are stores available in
urban areas that are not available in the bush where the residents
have to rely on the resources. We do not have fresh produce. We
do not have fresh meat within our stores.
Number 0858
REPRESENTATIVE BARNES stated she wants to know which communities do
not have any food in their stores. Air cargo is flown into most
communities frequently. In Alaska today food is available to all
who have the money to pay for it. Thus, the folks in urban areas
that do not have money should not be denied the right to
subsistence or sustenance to maintain their life.
Number 0905
MR. SLATS stated there are literally no jobs available. They have
to rely on welfare and handouts. They use the money for gear and
gas to get their food. He did not say there are no stores, but
there are no jobs for the most part.
Number 0960
CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN stated he is aware of that and would like to give
those that do not have a job a priority in a time of shortage.
Number 1017
BONNE' THERRIAULT-WOLDSTAD testified via teleconference in
Fairbanks. She has lived in North Pole, Kodiak and Craig. She
believes firmly that Alaska's fish and wildlife resources are a
second permanent fund. Subsistence means something different to
each person due to our great cultural, economical and geographical
diversity. We will never completely satisfy all the people. It
may be easier to say what subsistence is not rather than what it
is. The use of fish and wildlife resources have played a
significant role in her life. Many of the pioneers knew what it
was like to work through the summer to get through the winter.
When she was younger the moose and berries were a significant food
source for her family. Her brothers continue to hunt moose, and
her family gathers at least once a year to fish. We continue our
family's traditional use of the resources. But, as near and dear
as the resources are, they are not something that the family must
have in order to provide food. There are people to whom the use of
the resources come dearer. She does not, however, negate the
emotional importance of the resources to her family. In addition,
the areas that qualify as rural today will become urban areas in
the next 25 years as the population base continues to grow. Not
too long ago, cities grew and diminished during the Gold Rush Era.
As natural resources are discovered in remote areas of the state,
there will be a shift in population dynamics. For those who
advocate federal management, she asked them to consider what
happened to the fisheries before statehood. Federal laws are full
of Alaskan exemptions. She asked the legislators to fully review
and fund the use of the local fish and game advisory committees.
They were established to make recommendations based on local
knowledge and needs. We must realize that the state continues to
grow and we have placed greater strains on the resources. We must
all recognize that there will be change. We must start to
differentiate between subsistence, and customary and traditional
uses of the resources. The federal takeover must be avoided. It
is in the best interest of the people to find a solution in which
Alaskan control is maintained, not only in name, but in function.
She agreed that the issue should continue to be fought in court,
but we should not wait. She would like to see a vote on the rural
preference, as well as the lawsuit. When she lived in Craig she
would have qualified for subsistence, and could have applied for a
proxy hunt for her brother-in-law, who was injured in a snowmobile
accident; her brother, who was having problems with his back; her
sister-in-law, who was pregnant; and her father, who was losing
sight in one eye. That would have been an abuse of the system.
These are things that can be worked with. She does not see the
term "rural" being modified in this election. Canada is seeking a
greater role in the input of fish management in Alaska. She
wondered whether Alaska's resources would be controlled by treaties
under federal management. It is imperative that we forestall
federal management with a five-year sunset clause.
Number 1356
GABE SAM, Director of Wildlife and Parks, Tanana Chiefs Conference,
Incorporated (TCC), testified via teleconference in Fairbanks. He
is speaking for 43 tribal villages, approximately 14,000 members.
For the record, TCC opposes HB 406. At this time, we are faced
with two critical dilemnas - the impending federal takeover because
of the state constituion, and the deteriation of a community and a
way of life. House Bill 406 would be the type of law that would
deteriate our way of life. It does not comply with ANILCA. By
replacing the words "customary and traditional" uses with "personal
or family" uses, the bill eliminates the entire concept of
subsistence. The word "sustenance" refers to food when subsistence
is more than food; it is a way of life that involves our culture,
spirituality, and relationship with one another. In tribal
villages the invidual human being is not the critical view that
drives the world of subsistence. To subject Native American people
to a permit process would reach into the middle of every family and
village and create two aritificial classes - traditionalists and
moderns. The result would be personal resentment and conflicting
loyalties amongst the closest of friends and family members. It
would destroy the social cohesion of any village largely based on
subsistence roles and obligations. The fear of not meeting the
eligibility requirments would become a disinsentive to participate
in a wage economy if it meant having to leave the community. He is
concerned with the young men and women growing up in the
communities now because they would not be able to combine cash and
wild resources - the only way villages can make it through each
year. Finally, HB 406 would even regulate sharing and bartering,
another essential component in a village's way of life.
Number 1548
REPRESENTATIVE BARNES stated Mr. Sam's testimony indicated the
whole problem of a rural priority - the creation of two artificial
classes of Natives in a village. Yet over and over, he is asking
the legislature to create two artificial classes of Alaskans. She
asked Mr. Sam to comment.
Number 1579
MR. SAM replied there are no jobs in the rural communities, and
even if they have a job they do not want to live off of the stores.
They grew up living off of moose, caribou, beaver and fish. His
family lives in Fairbanks, but they live off of the subsistence
foods that he was brought up on.
Number 1635
REPRESENTATIVE BARNES stated it always amazes her that the way one
person was brought up is suppose to be better than the way another
person was brought up. For example, her children ate moose,
caribou and fish. To this date, one of her sons rarely buys any
meat of any kind in the store. Why should the way he grew up
eating that type of meat be any different than anybody else she
asked.
Number 1665
MR. SAM replied we are talking about two different cultures. He
does not have an understanding of her culture, but he does have a
clear understanding of his culture from the teachings of the
elders. He does not want to make it a cultural issue, but it is
dividing Alaskans into rural versus urban, and Native versus non-
Native. In addition, the state needs to manage its fish and
wildlife resources. It is not managing the wolf population, for
example. The resources are not only being depleated by the
preditors, but by the population of the state as a whole. The
resources will not be able to sustain themselves much longer with
the population growing.
Number 1725
CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN stated Mr. Sam hit the nail right on the head -
sustaining the resources. The sustained yield clause of the state
consitution is where he would like to go with the issue so that in
a shortage there can be a preference in order to preserve the
resource. Testimony has indicated that rural communities are
turning into urban areas. He cited Bethel and Sitka. Sitka has a
Carrs grocery store, and there are many villages where household
incomes are high.
Number 1791
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES asked Mr. Sam whether he was referring to
himself or the people he represents when he mentioned living in
Fairbanks and living a subsistence lifestyle.
Number 1825
MR. SAM replied he was talking about himself. There are a lot of
people who live in Fairbanks because there are no jobs in the rural
communities. In a time of shortage all people in the state would
suffer under limited hunting. In response to Representative Ogan,
there are a lot of villages that are below the poverty level.
Number 1875
REPRESENTATIVE MASEK respectfully asked the committee members to
hold their comments. There are a lot of people waiting to testify.
Number 1906
REPRESENTATIVE REGGIE JOULE stated he is not interested in hearing
a debate with the people who are viewing their opinions. He is
interested in hearing their opinions.
Number 1922
REPRESENTATIVE WILLIAMS agreed with Representatives Masek and
Joule.
CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN asked the committee members to keep their debate
down, unless a significant point is raised.
Number 2012
RALPH SEEKINS, Representative, Alaska Wildlife Conservation
Association (AWCA), testified via teleconference in Fairbanks. The
AWCA has the greatest respect for Alaskans who harvest fish and
game and other natural resources to feed and care for their
families - the attempt in HB 406. The AWCA believes the answer is
abundance - also the attempt in HB 406. From that standpoint, the
concept of the bill is good. It needs some tuning and
simplification, and the AWCA is willing to work with the
legislature to do that. Today, less than 3 percent of Alaska's
harvestable surplus goes to feed people, the rest goes to feed
predators, or to replenish the stocks. This is a deplorable report
card. We are fighting over who gets to shot the last moose.
Today, the Department of Fish and Game with the Governor's blessing
is spending millions of dollars to build an indoor shooting range,
while refusing to control predators. The AWCA does not like that.
There are three parts from the bible that apply to this situation:
Philip (second chapter, third verse), James (third chapter,
sixteenth verse), and Matthew (twelfth chapter, twenty-fifth
verse). The AWCA implores that the legislature and the people of
Alaska work together. The federal control issue belongs in the
courts. The discussion will never end, the division will never
cease, and the destruction of a unified Alaska will never end,
until there is a United States Supreme Court decision. Otherwise,
many Alaskans will continue to put great hope into hollow promises
of the power mongers who would divide us against ourselves. We
cannot solve division by making it permanent. We cannot say it is
right when it is morally wrong. The AWCA believes that the greater
evil is to approve of and make a permanent system of discrimination
than the federal control looming over our heads. A final judicial
is needed. The AWCA applauds the Legislative Council committee for
continuing the fight. Title VIII of ANILCA is wrong and flies in
the face of the public trust doctrine, the Alaska Statehood Act,
and other Acts. But, while doing that, the AWCA applauds Co-
Chairman Ogan for looking for a solution amongst Alaskans and
commits itself to working towards a solution that will work for
everyone.
Number 2201
DICK BISHOP testified via teleconference in Fairbanks. He is
testifying on behalf of himself today. He supports the principles
of the AFN subsistence summit of the opportunity to gather fish and
game for subsistence as a basic human right. It is inappropriate
to discriminate arbitrarily against people who exercise that right.
There needs to be equity in the opportunity to exercise that basic
human right. The proposal to establish the federal rural priority
is in direct opposition to the equity and pursuit of that right.
Personally, he believes basing a consideration of preference on
food is the way to go. Comments on the values that follow a
subsistence way of life are based on the gathering of food. A one-
liner that was often used in the early days of this debate 20 years
ago was "hunger knows no law." The whole issue was the opportunity
to gather food for one's self and family. In reference to the
responsibilities of the legislators, Edmund Burke stated "Your
representative owes you not his industry only, but his judgement,
and he betrays instead of serving you, if he sacrifices it to your
opinion." The people depend on the judgements of legislators to
protect the public trust on their behalf.
Number 2356
BRUCE KNOWLES testified via teleconference in Mat-Su. He thanked
the committee members for scheduling the meeting on a Saturday when
the average Alaskan can attend. He cautions the legislators from
passing another amendment that would develop another elite group of
Alaskans and separate communities. House Bill 406 is a good
starting point. It is not a panacea. It does not resolve all of
the problems. Co-Chairman Ogan is to be commended, however. He
encourages the legislature to do something that will give each
Alaskan a share of what he is entitled to under the constitution.
In a time of shortage, Alaskan have an obligation to look out for
their neighbors.
Number 2426
KATIE HURLEY testified via teleconference in Mat-Su. She is a
lifelong Alaskan and has been a resident of the Matanuska Valley
since 1960. She served in the House of Representatives in the
Fourteenth Alaska State Legislature. She also worked for 12 years
for Territorial Governor Ernest Gruening. Most importantly, she
was the chief clerk at the Alaska Constitutional Convention and
heard all of the debate of each article of the constitution. She
read the following letter from Mary Nordale to Speaker Phillips
dated 2/12/98:
"The apparent refusal of the legislature to deal substantively with
the subsistence issue dismays me. Those of us who lived under
federal dominion in territorial days and those of us old enough to
remember the politics of that ere have done a dismally poor job of
teaching the latecomers and 'afterborns' our history.
TAPE 98-21, SIDE B
Number 0000
"My mother was a member of the constitutional convention. During
the convention, I was overseas at school, so when I returned home,
my mother sat me down one Sunday afternoon and went over the
constitution section by section, sentence by sentence, to explain
to me why the document was written as it was.
"Subsistence was not an issue. The population was small, the
pressure on subsistence resources was slight and the big problem
facing the delegates was insuring that all Alaskans, regardless of
race, had access to those resources. The delegates were well aware
that in many respects, the federal government had worked to exclude
Alaskans from utilization of the Territory's resources and they
determined that exclusion on account of race would not occur. You
may recall the virtual enslavement to the fur seal trade of the
Natives resettled on the Pribilofs. You may also recall the
prohibition enforced by the federal government of Native-owned
power boats in the Bristol Bay fishery. That prohibition was based
on the peculiar theory that Alaskan Natives could not efficiently
operate power boats and that, therefore, they should be restricted
to sail boats.
"The Fouke Fur Company had a very sweet deal with the Fish and
Wildlife Service and the Bureau of Indian Affairs in harvesting fur
seals. The Aleuts on St. Paul and, to a small extent, on St.
George were required to harvest the seals for almost no wages and
it took an Act of Congress to allow them to utilize the meat from
the slaughtered animals. The Alaska canned salmon industry
controlled the Bristol Bay fishery and the sail boats to which the
Natives were restricted meant that the catch went almost
exclusively to the Brindle canneries. Nick Bez controlled almost
all of the salmon in Southeastern Alaska and his fish traps were
placed at the mouth of almost every major spawning stream in that
region. The military use of caribou herds as strafing targets was,
perhaps, not so well documented, but it was known.
"With statehood, Alaska's population has exploded well beyond what
even the most dedicated dreamer among the constitutional delegates
hoped. Moreover, its concentration in the Anchorage area has led
many Alaskans to remain ignorant of the lives and lifestyles of
people living in the bush. The availability of supermarkets and
clothing stores in all of Alaska's towns and villages over 1,000 in
population has disguised the need for reliance on subsistence for
the many Alaskans, Native and non-Native alike, who live in areas
where foodstuffs, clothing and other materials are very expensive
and cannot be well maintained. Most of Alaskans have no idea what
it means to live in a nearly cashless society.
"We, who should know better, have failed to tell the stories and
have failed to impress those who resist the granting of a rural
priority with the realization that had subsistence been an issue
when the constitution was written, subsistence would have been
incorporated in the constitution for the benefit of those who must
depend upon local resources for their very lives.
"The delegates to the constitutional convention were deeply
concerned by the racial divisions that best the lower 48 states.
Alaska's constitution contains many bars against racial
discrimination for the reason that the delegates envisioned
creating a society that treated everyone equally. The delegates
intended provisions insuring equal access to fish and game to
prohibit discrimination against Alaskan Natives and to guarantee
that Alaskan Natives would never be denied the opportunity to
maintain life. On its fact, granting a rural priority for
subsistence would seem to fly in the face of that principle of
equality, but it was never the intent of the delegates to limit
access to resources upon which Alaskan Natives depend for their
lives.
"It is time now for us to grant that priority. It is wrong to
elevate sport hunting and fishing to the level of or over hunting
and fishing that supplies the necessities of life. It is wrong to
say that the sport hunter's needs for game is equal to the need of
a person who must rely on game to survive. It is wrong to say that
commercial interests must be served at the expense of people's very
lives.
"Granting a rural priority for subsistence will have little, if
any, appreciable effect on the vast majority of Alaskans. Allowing
a federal takeover of management of Alaska's fish and game
resources will, however, wreak havoc on those resources. There is
simply no way that the federal government can resist the political
pressures exerted by various special interest groups, be they
commercial or environmental. We know that from our own history and
from observation of current federal fish and game management
techniques, and federal management of other resources as well.
Management of fish and game should not be political, it should be
scientific, with information developed not only by academic
specialists, but also from the acute observations of the people who
live with those resources.
"Alaskans have been remiss in allowing the department of Fish and
Game to rely almost entirely upon academically trained scientists
and technicians. We should long since have incorporated in our
management programs the observations of the people who live with
the managed resources and whose observations are based on
techniques honed by centuries of experience.
"The day the federal government takes over all rural management of
Alaska's fish and game resources will be a day that will live in
infamy. It is difficult for me to believe that Alaskans could, in
less than 40 years, forget the dreadful lessons we learned from
federal management of our fish and game resources so that we
willingly submit ourselves again to that regime. I hope that the
Twentieth Legislature will exercise the generosity of spirit,
recognize the need for development of a community of all Alaskans
and pass the necessary resolution that will allow all of us to vote
to amend the constitution to grant the rural priority for
subsistence."
ROBERT HALL, Representative, Houston Chamber of Commerce, testified
via teleconference in Mat-Su. Houston was established when the
railroad went through in about 1918 or 1920. Many at the time
sustained themselves off of fish from the Little Susistna, and over
the years the residents of Houston continue to be dependent on the
river for their salmon intake. The bill is a strong framework that
has the possibility of being the solution. It has the potential,
with some tweaking, to gather support from most of the major
groups. We like many aspects of the bill. Former Governor
Hammond's original suggestion was to establish different game areas
to allow for more local input. The priority for all Alaskans to
feed their families is very important. The use of the word
"preference" instead of "priority" is better. In order to maintain
some sort of continuity with ANILCA, he suggested changing the
wording back to "subsistence," then carefully define it so that it
meets the needs. It is a tough job, but needs to be done in order
to make it acceptable to most parties. The lines drawn for the
dependent use areas would probably contain all of the non-
subsistence areas which would put all of the rural users in their
own districts so that in a time of shortage there would be a rural
priority. The criteria for qualifying also needs to flushed out
and dealt with. Basically, this is a program that most people
could support. Any Alaskan who wants to feed his family will
support it, and any commercial fisherman who faces a federal
takeover will support it. It has the potential to draw all of the
parties together, as long as subsistence is defined.
Number 0516
REPRESENTATIVE NICHOLIA asked Mr. Hall what major groups is he
talking about.
Number 0522
MR. HALL replied most importantly the rural communities, including
AFN, and the United Fishermen of Alaska. The rural communities are
going to have to sign on to the bill It is going to have to
require the agreement of major Native, sport and commercial fishing
groups throughout the state.
Number 0600
KATHERINE S. MIYASATO, President, Alaska Native Sisterhood -
Douglas Camp Number 3, explained she is a Tlingit from the Taku
tribe. She is a raven frog. She was raised in Juneau. The name
Marshall was given to her grandfather because he was the first
federal marshall on Douglas Island. She went to the Catholic
school in Juneau and graduated from the high school. They did not
let us learn our Tlingit way. "It's a shame," she said. She just
turned 70 years old on New Years Day. She did not learn her
culture, and because of that she is different. "To be lacking of
your culture, of what you're suppose to know, you're robbed, you're
different," she said. In terms of subsistence, she remembers the
Catholic Nuns always saying "sustenance." She was surprised to see
it in the bill. She is opposed to anything that would take her
natural way of life away. To this day, she cannot drink fresh
milk. She likes it, but she cannot tolerate it. Her system needs
dried fish, seal oil and seaweed, and she grew up in Juneau eating
steaks and hamburgers. She said, "Our systems really do not
evolve; they are in tune to the way we have eaten." She recently
found out at an elders conference that when the Department of Fish
and Game regulates to catch fish it does not coincide with when we
really need to catch it in order to dry it. The words
"subsistence" and "sustenance" do not describe our physical,
emotional, cultural or way of life. The Alaskan way of life is
really a sad situation because we have been tried to be
Americanized. Diseases and the change of foods almost wiped us
out. Now, there are alcohol and drugs. It is like taking away her
right as a person. She does not agree with a permitting process,
just look at the limited entry permit system. In closing, all of
Alaska is Indian country and she hopes that the visitors have been
treated well.
Number 1138
ERIC MUENCH testified via teleconference in Ketchikan. The people
who wrote Article VIII, Section 3 could not foresee that it would
ever be used to prohibit a preference for subsistence type use.
There are some principles that should apply: all Alaskans should
have the right to use the fish and game resources throughout the
state. However, there needs to be a preference in relation to bag
limits and seasons that would apply to specific geographical
regions according to the economics of the areas. A preference for
those in the geographical areas should apply only when there is a
shortage. It should apply only to the extent that the resources
can support subsistence use for the people of that area. A
preference should apply to all of the year-round, permanent
residents of that area. The draft bill is going down the right
track. In Section 16.16.020(b) and (c) are not a practical
approach. It would create a huge paperwork problem for the
agencies and boards dealing with it. It would be a step towards a
welfare program. It would also be subject to abuse. In addition,
making a living from fishing, hunting and trapping without payment
or the possibility of a commercial sale would not make anybody rich
or give a good living. There would not be a rush of people to the
areas to take part in that lifestyle. He has a problem with
section 16.16.020(g) because in a subsistence type lifestyle you
would not be in a position to travel all over the state. If you
had that type of resource, you would not need a subsistence
lifestyle. Thus, the preferential taking of fish and game should
be within the area the person lives or the adjacent area. There
are provisions in law now that talk of take for cultural purposes
which should continue. If we need to amend the constitution to
make the whole thing possible, we should do it.
Number 1417
BARBARA JANITSCHECK, Vice President of Traditional Services,
Maniilaq Association, testified via teleconference in Kotzebue.
She read the following:
"Good morning Mr. Chairman and committee members. My name is
Barbara Janitscheck. I am providing testimony on behalf of
Maniilaq Association and its member villages.
"Our region speaks in opposition to committee substitute HB 406.
"As you are aware, this region supported a federal takeover. House
Bill 406 only adds to our justification why we believe a federal
system is the system for us.
"Soon after ANCSA (Alaska Native Clams Settlement Act), rural
Alaska experienced enormous problems created by urban users - thus
the reason for the federal act of ANILCA Title VIII, which in our
view Congress did the right thing.
"We believe that HB 406 will bring us right back to the issue for
the protections rural Alaska enjoyed in Title VIII of ANILCA are
not found in HB 406.
"The bill does not include customary and traditional use of fish
and game resources. The reduced level of participation, lack of
language in the bill for the definition of customary and
traditional use and the lack of a rural preference are enough for
our area to conclude that HB 406 does not satisfy current
requirements of Title VIII of ANILCA.
"In times of shortage, HB 406 fails to address a clear solution for
rural Alaska. If the boards determine there is a shortage then
they may establish a preference. The language 'if' and 'may' are
not enough to ensure that rural Alaska has a preference.
"House Bill 406 is clearly a needs-based system, and the
bureaucracy proposed is huge and does not take into consideration
our cultural use of fish and game and will cause damage to our
culture. It is also inconsistent with Title VIII of ANILCA.
"House Bill 406's proposed management structure that is not set up
for effective 'hands-on' management by local people. Only
recommendations are expected from an advisory board who will send
their recommendations up the ladder to the regional boards, and
these regional boards would in turn provide their own
recommendations to a Board of Fisheries or Game who will make the
final decisions. This is not effective hands-on management by
local people.
"Our villages already face major problems - the challenges of
welfare reform. Residents of urban Alaska have a superior access
to the welfare system than rural Alaskans. Those urban residents
can walk into any of the facilities in their area and have a face-
to-face encounter with a case worker who can then provide one-stop
services. Our rural residents don't have this luxury. What we
have is a state system set up by telephone for those individuals on
welfare. There is a lack of enough jobs in the villages. There is
a lack of economic development, and rural Alaska faces cuts in a
lot of service areas and/or access to funding and services.
"House Bill 406 will only add to complicate the hardships making it
more difficult to provide healthy meals to Native and non-Native
families in rural Alaska. And those families will begin to suffer
like they did before Title VIII of ANILCA was passed. Food from
the land is an everyday mainstay of our families. Local hunters
continue to provide food for their families, their extended
families, and for their community. The food that is caught is
always shared. Cultural sharing is one of the most important
functions for the maintenance of healthy families and communities.
House Bill 406 is not the solution and should not go further than
this committee. We ask that you not support this bill."
Number 1711
REPRESENTATIVE BARNES stated Ms. Janitscheck mentioned that urban
Alaskans have access to a one-stop shopping welfare system. She
wondered whether Ms. Janitscheck is aware of the new welfare law on
the books that says one can only qualify for welfare for five
years. In addition, there is a cash economy in the Kotzebue area -
the Red Dog Mine. She asked Ms. Janitscheck how many people from
the villages does the Red Dog Mine employee.
Number 1757
MS. JANITSCHECK replied she is not sure of the exact numbers. The
Native hire is not working well. There are a lot of Natives
working there, but the percentage between non-Natives and Natives
is not enough to satisfy the Natives' needs for jobs. She is aware
of the new welfare program in Alaska.
Number 1830
REPRESENTATIVE JOULE explained to Representative Barnes that about
50 percent of the employees of the Red Dog Mine are shareholders,
including individuals that are not Native necessarily, but married
to shareholders.
Number 1875
WARREN LEWIS testified via teleconference in Kwigillingok. The
Native village of Kwigillingok opposes the bill 100 percent. It
seems there is a comedian in the legislature. It is funny that the
fish and game must be consumed within the region taken - the "eat-
it-where-you-shoot-it provision."
Number 1960
TED HAMILTON (PH) testified via teleconference in Emmonak. The
state of Alaska is giving the impression that it hates its own
Natives. It spent $1 million to fight the Venetie case and now
there is an impending federal takeover for some parts of Alaska.
The federal government will take over if the state continues its
current course of action. If the state cannot make a decision,
everything that Senator Stevens did to stall the federal government
will be wasted. To make sure that this does not happen, you must
make a rural priority and amend the state constitution. If we open
up Alaska to everyone, the animal populations will go down. If
everyone does subsistence, how can the state expect to collect
money for hunting and fishing permits? What would happen to the
tourist industry if there are no animals? Would the tourists want
to come to different parts of Alaska if everybody does the same
thing? In addition, we should be able to bring food home to serve
it to our people, not have to eat it in that place. That is how we
live our life. In addition, the bill is setting up a bureaucracy
that would be very time consuming and cost money. It is amazing
that you would want to pursue this avenue. You should try to save
money and follow the rules that the federal government wants and
make a rural priority.
Number 2172
MYRON NANENG, President, Association of Village Council Presidents,
testified via teleconference in Bethel. A tribal consortium
representing 56 villages in the Yukon-Kuskokwim Delta. Last night
he dreamt that the state of Alaska had finally treated the Alaskan
Natives fairly and recognized their culture, tradition, and way of
life. House Bill 406 squashes that dream. We do not support it
because the term "sustenance" does not recognize the Alaskan Native
way of life, tradition and culture. In 1971 the state of Alaska
promised to recognize the subsistence way of life with the passage
of the Alaskan Native Claims Settlement Act. To date, the state
has not kept its promise, or is it willing to sue itself for not
keeping that promise. House Bill 406 does not fulfill that
promise. There have been many lawsuits that the villages have had
to file in order to get mandated services that the state should
have provided under the constitution such as schools. Now ,the
legislture is trying to cut down funding for them. The villages
have had to file lawsuits to recognize the implementation of
subsistence regulations. The fishing was a failure in the summer
of 1993. There was a closure for subsistence fall chum in 1994.
The fishing was a failure in te summer of 1997 on the Kuskokwim as
well as Bristol Bay. The first fisheries that were closed were
subsistence. The Board of Fisheries has finally taken action to
address the fisheries that impact the fish that return to our
rivers because of the threat to the species that the state is
suppose to be managing. People say that the federal managers were
bad, but just take a look at managment right now. The first
fisheries that are closed are subsistence. The state of Alaska has
had regional and local advisory committees in the past that have
been ignored. They have made recommendations to help in the
management, such as unguided hunters that come back with antlers
and heads. What happened to the rest of the meat, and why are the
subsistence users blamed for the decline of the resources.
TAPE 98-22, SIDE A
Number 0000
Number 0054
HUBERT ANGAIAK testified via teleconference in Bethel. As an
Alaskan, he does not support HB 406 because it will cause a lot of
bureacuracy in rural areas. He prefers a rural preference.
Number 0130
MICHAEL BOWEN, Chair, Local Advisory Committee, testified via
teleconference in Cordova. He is not sure what HB 406 would do to
stop the federal takeover. Section 12(a) of the bill calls for the
creation of five management regions. Currently, there are six
management regions in the state causing one to be absored. The
areas now are based on natural biological boundaries. He feels
that the new boundaries would be political boundaries, not natural
biological ones. Section 12(b) of the bill calls for a maximum of
nine local advisory committees in each region. Currently, there
are 18 local adivsory committees in his region. Thus, the bill
would gut the local advisory committee system. In reference to
Section 2(d) of the bill, his local advisory committee is very
active. The work load is such that there are two chairmen - one
handles fish issues and the other handles game issues. "To ask our
advisory committee to be judge and jury, and make recommendations
to determine whether a person is entitled to a preference is
wrong," he said. As a chairman, he would not partake in it. In
addition, section 2(g) allows a person with a preference to take
fish and game in any location in the state when travelling long
distance for sustenance or subsistence is a contradiction.
Number 0325
CALEB PUNGOWIYI, Director of Natural Resources, Kawerak,
Incorporated, testified via teleconference in Nome. Kawerak
represents 19 communities in the region. First of all, it is hard
to testify intelligently on something that he feels strongly
against. The bill proposes dependent use areas based on economic
conditions and he can see that many of the communities that have
different economic levels may not fit into these areas. The system
of applying for a permit is worse than being audited by the
Internal Revenue Service (IRS). It is an administrative nightmare
and he does not see how it could be implemented. For example, Nome
has had problems with escapement and closures of the fisheries.
Next week when the Board of Fisheries meets in Nome there will be
discussion on tier II fishing for salmon, the first ever in the
state. Nome's area biologist has been issuing subsistence permits
to people that he knows qualifies. Under the bill, anybody could
come and fish. The area biologist would be in knots. He would not
know who to give a permit to because there are only so many fish to
be taken. Under the tier II system at least there is some balance
of people who have historically taken the fish and who are more
dependent. He can only envision how the Department of Fish and
Game would try to implement it. What are we getting into with the
advisory committees, regional boards, Board of Fisheries and then
finally the Governor getting into the decision making process, he
wondered. In addition, in reference to the appointment of the
regional boards, he has watched the confirmation process....
(Due to technical difficulties, Mr. Pungowiyi's testimony
is not complete)
Number 0650
PATRICK CHURCH testified via teleconference in Homer. He was asked
by Mr. Jack Polster to read the following:
"Last Tuesday, I had the occassion to sit here in the Homer
teleconference office and listen to Mr. Greg Cook explain to the
committee the public trust doctrine. You will recall that Mr. Cook
explained to you your duties under that doctrine, including loyalty
to the public, dealing impartially with the beneficiaries, and not
to delegate your responsibilities. You will recall that Mr. Cook
also stated that one of your fiduciary responsibilities was to
provide information to the beneficiaries when requested. For the
last four years, I have asked state government if it considers
subsistence a right or a privelage and never have I received an
answer and now I ask you. The question is significant and the
answer is awaiting. Is subsistence a right or a privelage? You
will recognize that a substantial number of individuals within the
borders of Alaska hold common law freedom and status. These
individuals have no contracts of adhesion with government. They
hold no license or permits from government. They live not because
of government, but inspite of it. In lines 9-12 on page 4 of the
23-page CSHB 406 working draft we find the following under (c):
'A person is dependent upon fish and game for personal
and family use for sustenance if the person (1) possesses
a $5 resident hunting, traping, and sport fishing license
issued under AS 16.05.340(a)(6); and'
"I repeat my assertion - subsistence is a right. Subsistence is
not a privelage. To ask for a license to exercise a right is not
in order. For example, if Teddy Kennedy and his kind have their
way, I would be required to request a government permit or license
to bear arms. By requesting and accepting the permit, I would
automatically destroy the right which I now hold. A person cannot
exercise a right or permit or license. Subsistence is a right, but
the committee through its language in 406 has indicated its believe
that subsistence is a mere privelage. One cannot accept a license
from government which would be considered necessary to exercise
subsistence and retain the right which he held until that point.
I would like the committee to revist that point in lines 9-12 on
page 4 of CSHB 406 and amend the bill's language so that it will
clearly state that subsistence is a right. I thank you very much
for your time."
Number 0864
CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN replied like many rights, the state has a
compelling interest to regulate some things that need to be
balanced against the sustained yield principle. We cannot allow
unregulated hunting and fishing, or we would not have any resource
at all.
Number 0944
JIM SYKES testified via teleconference in Anchorage. He has
recorded more than 400 hours of testimony on subsistence and
sovereignty when he worked for the Alaska Native Review Commission
in 1984 and 1985. He strongly urges the committee members to
review the work of the commission, archived in the University of
Alaska Fairbanks and Anchorage, and to also look at the Federal
Field Committee and the Alaska Native Commission. There is an
enormous body of work on this subject. The problem is that the
public has not been involved actively with the issue. It will not
be solved until there is wide-spread participation. He commends
Representative Ogan for bringing forth the bill. It needs some
work, but it is a good beginning point for a wide-spread
discussion. He hopes that it will be taken on the road. Part of
the issue is trust. There is an historical sharing of the
resources that is part of the subsistence tradition. The knowledge
and health of the resources are well known locally. Therefore, the
concept of brining local knowledge forward has to be part of it.
He believes that the issue can be resolved without a constituional
amendment if we make sure that local people are part of the
management system. He offered the following concepts for
consieration: to look at the success of the federal government in
terms of implementing the regional subsistence advosory councils,
the species the state is attempting to manage, local involvement,
community allocation in a time of limited entry, and the federal
government's right to contract with tribal entities to manage fish
and game. We have to keep in mind that the federal government has
granted three basic rights to the indiginous people living within
the borders of the United States - free health care, free education
and to continue their culture. They are a part of every Alaskan
Native culture that cannot be separated. It is a web of sharing
essential skills and knowledge that cannot be reduced to an
economic need or means-test if you need to eat. The more we try to
skirt around that issue, the longer we will have the problem. In
concludion, when we embrace our Alaskan neighbors and sit down and
try to work out the problem together we will succeed. It will
probably take longer than December 1, 1998, however.
Number 1352
LOREN CROXTON testified via teleconference in Petersburg. He
thanked Representative Ogan for taking on the task that should have
been done 20 years ago. He endorses Carl Rosier and Jim Rearden's
comments. As Mr. Rosier said, "simply amending our constitution to
bring us into compliance with ANILCA will not, in fact, return
management to the state. We would have full control with federal
oversight. Simply, another form of federal management." The
Constitution of the United States requires that all states be
admitted into the union under equal footing which means full
control of its resources. It is almost inconcievable that the
federal government could blackmail one of its states into
discriminating against its own people. The same federal government
that blackmails other countries for their discriminatory policies.
The determination of who would be eligible for subsistence bothers
him because the boards were designed to manage fish and game
resources, not to do chores as required in the bill. It does not
and would not have the expertise or time to do it. It would be a
catastrophy to asked the Department of Fish and Game to control it.
He suggested considering a system such as the one used by the
Limited Entry Commission. He absolutely knows that the Board of
Fisheries does not have the time or expertise to do this.
Number 1536
CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN asked Mr. Croxton to state for the record his
previous employment and his involvement when the federal government
handed over the helm of fish and game management to the state.
Number 1547
MR. CROXTON replied he came to Alaska just prior to statehood to
attend graduate school in Fairbanks. He went to work for the
Alaska Department of Fish and Game in 1960. He has had about 38
years of involvement with the management of the state's fish and
game.
Number 1576
CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN asked Mr. Croxton whether he is aware of the
amendments made to ANILCA that would give the Secretary full and
exclusive authority to take over managment if the state adopts a
rural priority and he finds that it is out of compliance. It would
not take effect until the state adopts it into its constitution and
statutes.
Number 1602
MR. CROXTON replied he is aware of it. He hopes that the state can
write a subsistence bill that would qualify it to fully manage its
resources or to fullfill the requirements of ANILCA. It is
possible, but if the state cannot do it then it has to depend upon
the courts or Congress to amend ANILCA.
Number 1660
RON LONG testified via teleconference in Seward. There appears to
be some contraditions in the bill because it first says there will
be no preference in terms of the common use for all Alaskans then
it develops into a needs-based system. It finally evolves to a
system where anybody who wants to complete the application, while
keeping a straight face, could become a priority user. It sounds
sort of like an attempt to include sport users as sustenance users
at the expense of good science-based managmeent. The hope that
Congress will pass changes to ANILCA in the absence of
corresponding changes in the state constitution is naive. "If you
truly want an Alaskan-based solution then put it to the Alaskan
voters," he said. It is time to end the grandstanding. The recent
royalty decision should tell us all how warmly the courts and
Congress would receive the notion of the state's wishes to
(indisc.) resources management issues, especially without support
of the Governor, Speaker of the House of Representatives, President
of the Senate, user groups, and voters. It is the arrogance of
this proposed non-solution that will lead to a federal takeover.
There is no dishonor in amending the constitution and getting to a
common goal for a means that is doable. House Bill 406, as it
stands now, will not get us there. Discussions, modifications, and
elements of the subsistence task force proposal can get us a
solution, if held openinly with all the parties involved. In
reference to Representative Ogan's comments at the Anchorage
Chamber of Commerce Forum, a reduction in the commercial fishing
quotas would basically end the subsistence dilemna. The desire to
resolve commercial and sport user group conflicts as s sub-purpose
for the bill in non-rural areas is a separate issue that needs to
be decided separately. Any attempt to encorporate protective
intent for the sport lobby and therby provoke a federal takeover is
playing fast and loose with the best interest of all Alaskans. He
said, "We all know in this life we don't get what we deserve, we
get what we negotiate."
Number 1812
CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN stated, to clarify the records, that his comments
at the Anchorage Chamber of Commerce Forum were along the lines of
buying back permits in a time of resource shortage. Subsistence
harvests only 1 percent of the fish. There are certainly enough
fish to provide for that need. There is the potential, however, to
look at buying back permits to make sure that Alaskan residents
have the priority when there is not enough resource to go around.
Number 1865
NICK SZABO testified via teleconference in Kodiak. He had the
opportunity to serve on the Board of Fish and Game in 1975 and the
Board of Fisheries until 1982. He had the privelage to serve with
Jim Rearden, Sidney Huntington, and Carl Rosier. He endorses what
they have said. He commends the efforts of Representative Ogan and
the House Resources committee to come up with a system that aims at
a fair preference for those that really need the resources. It is
a good place to start and hopefully everybody can look at it
objectively to start on an Alaskan solution. On page 6, the
definition of "shortage" needs clarification. It is unclear
whether it applies to protein abundance at the time or to a
particular type of species. On page 15, subsection (j), the
wording is a little ambiguous becasue it implies that the regional
boards have both emergency opening and closure authority. He
suggested deleting the entire paragraph. It has never been
exercised and there is potential for abuse. Emergency openings and
closures are best left to the commissioner.
Number 2077
CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN explained he is also working on the language in
subsection (j). The people in a region have a better idea if a
population is getting hammered too much. There is the possibility
of giving the regional boards the authority to close a population
in a time of shortage.
Number 2115
MORGAN SOLOMON testified via teleconference in Barrow. He has
lived in Barrow all of his life. Since 1959 we have been waiting
for the state of Alaska to do something with our subsistence
lifestyle. We have waited so long that sometimes we begin to
wonder whether the state has a preference for our cause here in
Alaska. The legislators from the urban areas - Fairbanks and
Anchorage - have made it clear that they do not support the Native
people who practice a traditional lifestyle. We have a very unique
lifestyle. We have had to rely on the United States government to
protect our ability to hunt and fish to support ourselves. He
said, "When I live in Fairbanks I have to live the state law. I
have to provide myself with a fish and game license, and live under
the fish statutes in order to provide for my family." We fear that
without the oversight of federal courts we will gradually loose
what is left of our traditional ways in a series of compromises.
The law would allow the urban legislators to look over our
shoulders and tell us what we should or should not do with our
tradition, the way we were raised throughout our existence. A
respected elder during the Alaska whaling hearings stated, "hunger
knows no law." The elder knew that we should not allow the federal
government to tell us what we should or should not do with our
traditional lifestyle. At the same time, the state should have
supported us during that time. It seems that we, the indiginous
people, should always be able to hunt for our families and villages
without restrictions. The bill undermines the very nature of our
culture because it implies that our people, who would not qualify
under a cash-based system, could not longer enjoy their God given
rights to live off of the land and in harmony with nature and the
environment. In the early 1970s, the Department of Fish and Game
adopted a policy of giving subsistence users the highest priority
among beneficial users, when in reality it only recieved lip
service.
TAPE 98-22, SIDE B
Number 0000
MR. SOLOMAN continued. States statutes have defined subsistence
for various purposes, have established a division for subsistence
under the Department of Fish and Game, and have delegated authority
to the Board of Game to establish subsistence hunting areas. But,
none of these statutes are able to overcome the legal, political,
and economical problems of the state when it comes to implementing
a true local or rural priority. Our subsistence right to hunt
renewable resources in rural communities should not be solely
managed by the Department of Fish and Game, but rather each village
should be given the responsibility to co-manage their fish and
game. He said, "No man, no legislator can regulate hunger that I
had back in the depression days in Alaska when the only means of
survival were our game." In addition, employment in Alaska is hard
to come by and welfare programs are steadily being cut by the
state. This bill only compounds the social and economic hardship
for our people whether they are Native or non-Native. He asked the
committee members not to support the bill.
Number 0142
DESA JACOBSSON testified in Juneau. Her name on the voter
registration records is Erica Leslie Jacobsson and the family name
her parents gave her means "the powerful little sister who was
protected by God." Her mother is from the upper Yukon and her
father is Yupik from the Kuskokwim. Seven years ago she was in
Juneau when she was stolen by a Tlingit. They now live in Juneau
where they can keep an eye on all of the legislators. They are
responsible for 11 children and grandchildren. She is a gardener
by profession and one of the spoiled and indulged children of the
Yupik. She is speaking on behalf of the lives of her children, the
hopes of her grandchildren, and the hearts of her grandmothers.
She is oposed to HB 406 because it is an act of deprevation and
oppression. While reading the bill she could not help but think
about the impact it would have on the aged, infirmed, widowed,
poor, fatherless, and those who use English as a second language.
With all of the requirements, the fish would have spawned, hatched
and returned to the sea by the time the stipulations in Section
2(a) - (g) were met. How would he, Mr. Chairman, feel if she posed
such regulations on him prior to his Thanksgiving, Christmas or
Easter shopping at his local mall or grocery store. How would he
feel if she required a written statement that he had turkey during
last years Thanksgiving or Christmas holidays, or proof that he had
chocolate cake at his childs last birthday. God forbid that three
boards acting jointly would determine that a number of little
chocolate Easter bunnies were shared with a minimum number of
households. How would he feel if he were asked before he went out
and got those little Easter eggs and chocolate bunnies: how stable
is his economy, what kinds of work does he do, what do his
neighbors earn, how much does he spend on goods and services, what
varieties of chocolate bunnies does he and those around him eat,
what is the percentage in his area who eat bunnies, what are the
historical, social and economical values associated with consuming
chocolate Easter bunnies during his holidays, and what are the
graphic locations where he gets them. In closing, deprevation is
the cruelest form of violence she knows. House Bill 406 is an act
of violence and she does not believe that the sweet Lord Jesus gave
him a vision so harmful and oppressive to so many. The sweet Lord
Jesus would never deprive the infirmed, aged, widowed and
fatherless. These are the special people that he has swarn to
protect and defend. She does not know what it will take to stop
the bill, but she does know it will be a cold day someplace before
any Native woman that she knows will allow this to happen.
Number 0344
CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN stated there is a difference between chocolate
Easter bunnies and the kind of bunnies that run around in the
woods. The bunnies that run around in the woods are a common
property of the public trust resources and the state has a
compelling interest to manage them in the best interest of the
people. If there was a shortage of Easter bunnies, he would be
more than happy to relinquish his position in line to somebody that
needs it more than him.
Number 0418
MARY PETE, Director, Division of Subsistence, Department of Fish
and Game, testified in Juneau. She will speak to the research and
management concerns that there are with HB 406. Her colleagues are
at a joint meeting of the Boards of Fisheries and Game and will
bring forward their concerns later. The division primarily
documents subsistence hunting and fishing in Alaska to help the
boards manage for that use. The individual criteria in the bill
brings the division a lot of concern. It would not recognize the
family and community system for production, processing and sharing
in traditional rural economies. It would require a very expensive
and intrusive process to qualify by making one's income and
consumption level public. The division's data base is based on
production or harvest of fish and game, not consumption.
Information on harvest and sharing are difficult to measure and
verify. They would be difficult to manage and enforce. The
eligibility numbers would change from year to year due to job
opportunities or lack of job opportunities that affect income
levels. In addition, there would be a lag time of one year, if the
previous year's economic situation was relied on. For example, if
last year was a great fishery, one would not qualify, but if the
current year the fishery crashed, one would not qualify when it was
needed the most. There is a logic problem. Currently, there are
around 80 active local advisory committees that have developed
around common interests. An arbitrary number of regions, regional
boards, and advisory committees would violate these established
coalitions of common interests. They know their jurisdictions
within the 26 game management units and approximately 300 fishing
districts. The fishing districts vary depending on the species.
Jurisdictions are assigned by the boards as the advisory committees
have dealt with the issue in their regions. There were only two
proposals from the public for the current joint board meeting to
change either jurisdiction or membership of the 80 some advisory
committees. The system has evolved over the years and makes sense
in terms of the management issues for the species concerned. The
bill would add mandates to an already full schedule.
Number 0679
CO-CHAIRMAN HUDSON asked Ms. Pete whether she knows the Governor's
position on the bill.
Number 0693
MS. PETE replied she has not asked him directly.
CO-CHAIRMAN HUDSON stated he does not want Ms. Pete to speculate on
his view, but at some point we need to have his view.
Number 0703
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES asked Ms. Pete how does the division get the
anticipated need to factor the numbers into management decisions
for fish and game.
Number 0730
MS. PETE replied in the rural areas there are extensive programs of
socioeconomic-economic surveys with a big focus on subsistence
output. The basis question is, "How much fish and game do you use
in a given year?" The division has been to close to 200
communities, including those that are designated as urban, and has
done research based on a household sampling. If the community is
small enough, it has done a census of family output. The
division's data base for some communities is old. For key species
of salmon along the Yukon and Kuskokwim Rivers in the Norton Sound
and Kotzebue area and herring in key parts of the state, there is
an annual monitoring program where the division asks households how
much they produce for the year. For non-subsistence areas, the
division relies on the harvest ticket reporting system established
in the Division of Wildlife Conservation. The division brings the
amount necessary to provide for subsistence uses to the board for
the specie that is up for a customary and traditional use
determination under the current law.
Number 0814
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES asked Ms. Pete whether there is any indication
when gathering the numbers to factor in a shortage, for example.
Number 0837
MS. PETE replied the question of meeting need is a sensitive one
culturally. Some people are loathed to say how fish and game will
behave for fear of appearing arrogant so that the fish and game
will not make themselves available. The division, therefore,
compares the harvest amounts from year to year, and gets
qualitative information on what the season was like for the
households. The division also asks post-season questions in terms
of how the previous season was and how the projected needs "might"
be. For example, the division has been receiving reports that
season was poor for the families and that they do not expect their
fish supplies to last the whole winter in the Norton Sound area.
The other qualitative questions asked are, does it take a
reasonable amount of time get your moose, or do you have to go
through what you consider extraordinary measures to produce as much
as what you are accustomed to, for example.
Number 0938
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES stated testimony today has indicated in
regards to game the concern of outside hunters eating into the
ability of subsistence people to find what they need. She asked
Ms. Pete how that is factored into the calculations in order to
protect the subsistence uses.
Number 0964
MS. PETE replied the division will bring in harvest information and
patterns and compare it to previous years. A reasonable
opportunity might not mean getting the same amount, but tweaking a
season so that it is harder for non-local residents to participate,
for example.
Number 1019
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES stated she recalls reading a story referring
to an empty boat. The division's research does not sound very
scientific. She wondered whether there is a way to get more
specific information.
Number 1039
MS. PETE replied there are either regulatory or statutory ideas
that could make this a tighter system. Until then, however, a lot
of discretion is put at the hands of the boards and for the most
part they have done well for the rural residents.
Number 1066
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN stated high-use areas such as Kenai use
counters. Generally, the state has not suffered under any of the
things the bill would invoke.
MS. PETE stated that is absolutely true.
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN asked Ms. Pete as the state gets closer to
that whether it is her feeling that the regional boards, without
more technical information, would adequately know how close the
state is getting towards the sustainable yield.
Number 1108
MS. PETE replied sustained yield is a biological question. The
subsistence division does social science research. Defining
shortage is a question of abundance or an ability to feed one's
family.
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN asked Ms. Pete whether she feels that the
state is capable of determining whether it is approaching that
limit. The information in regards to Nome is from a local
community board and a "feel-for-thing." He wondered whether there
is anything in place for the Department of Fish and Game to tell
whether the state is getting close.
Number 1183
MS. PETE replied the Nome situation is not new. Local concern has
been expressed since the 1980s. There have been management and
regulatory measures to both protect escapement and to provide local
opportunities for the stocks. The board is at the point of
exploring tier II because it appears that all other measure are not
improving the system region wide. She believes that the state has
the resources now to determine whether there is a shortage. There
is probably not enough resources to address the whole state. But,
the management system has done a good job of providing abundance so
that it does not get to that point.
Number 1301
CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN stated that the "time-of-shortage" language needs
to be looked at seriously.
Number 1353
LORETTA BULLARD, President, Kawerak, Incorporated, testified via
teleconference in Nome. Kawerak is a non-profit organization
servicing the Bering Strait region. She is opposed to the bill.
It will not restore management of fish and game on federal lands to
the state. The permitting system outlined would be a nightmare and
expensive to administer. It sets in place an individual needs-
based system. "I work, can afford, and have access to buy imported
food so most likely I would not be eligible. My boyfriend perhaps
might be eligible. His 84-year-old mother, definitely, would be
eligible." Once disqualifying all rural Alaskan with a job from
being eligible for "sustenance," she wondered who would help those
without resources to go hunting and fishing, such as her
boyfriend's 84-year-old mother. Subsistence hunting and fishing
involves extended families. She has been to fish camps where there
are four to six families working together, sharing nets, boats,
fish racks, and labor to catch and clean a winter supply of dried
fish. Under HB 406, when there is a shortage, she can envision
state fish and wildlife officers going from fish camp to fish camp
checking to see if there are people with incomes. The bill would
split rural families into haves and have nots of indigenous foods.
She is opposed to a reasonable opportunity standard being imposed
on subsistence hunting and fishing activities. The reasonable
opportunity standard has resulted in residents from the Bering
Straits region for the past 20 years being able to hunt a brown
bear once every 4 years. It was changed last year. The same
reasonable opportunity standard has resulted in forcing subsistence
river fishers to fish in the ocean because of closures in the
rivers. She's had a subsistence fish camp on the Pilgrim River for
35 years and for the past 20 years she has been restricted to
getting subsistence permits allowing a total of 20 salmon.
Subsistence users in the state use 4 percent of the fish and
wildlife resources. Secretary Babbitt has clearly stated that an
individual needs-based system is not compatible with ANILCA and
will not restore management to the state. The majority of Alaskans
support a rural priority; it is time to let the people vote on a
constitutional amendment. She encouraged the committee members to
vote against the bill.
Number 1524
PERRY MENDENHALL, Member, Sitnasuak Native Corporation Board,
testified via teleconference in Nome. He is speaking on behalf of
the shareholders who strongly depend on subsistence. We feel this
is a Band-Aide bill to fix a complex rural lifestyle of dependency
on fish and game in all seasons. This will not heal the wound of
our good conscience in rural Alaska made on subsistence since 1979.
Over the years since 1959 his mother has said many times that she
regretted voting for statehood when the promise was made that
subsistence would not be lost. The bill helps lose subsistence for
today and all generations to come. The Bering Straits region is an
economically depressed area ever since statehood and is dependent
upon subsistence - hunting, trapping, fishing, and gathering sea
and land plants. We feel that the bill is not consistent with
ANILCA. It favors commercialism over subsistence because Area M
fish intercepts chum salmon going to Nome. We have had subsistence
closures for the past 10 years in the rivers around Nome. We feel
that welfare reform forces us to look closer to the land, sea and
rivers for subsistence. In a time of plenty we need to prepare for
a time of shortage, but when some of our people try to do that we
get arrested. Sections 2, 5, 12, 19, 32 and 36 need to be worked
on. We feel the people need to vote on a constitutional amendment.
Number 1702
REPRESENTATIVE BARNES asked Mr. Mendenhall to give her an idea of
how the economy of the Bering Straits region has changed since
statehood.
Number 1729
MR. MENDENHALL replied there are still no jobs in the villages in
the Bering Straits region. Most of the jobs are for teachers, but
the Teacher Education Program, a program to train local people, has
been cut. The increase in population along with the fact that
there are no jobs makes the region economically depressed. The
food in the stores is too expensive and the shelves are even empty
sometimes resulting in more dependency on the subsistence
resources.
Number 1902
RICHARD ANDREW testified via teleconference in Ketchikan. He is in
support of the concept of the proposed committee substitute. It
upholds the Constitution of the State of Alaska. It attempts to
treat all citizens equal. It keeps the management of fish and game
in state hands. And, if passed, it should avoid a federal takeover
through congressional changes to ANILCA.
Number 1955
KAY ANDREW testified via teleconference in Ketchikan. She supports
Loren Croxton and Carl Rosier's statements. She congratulates all
of the representatives who support an Alaskan solution to the
subsistence issue. The bill is going in the direction that
subsistence should go. She does not want the federal government to
take over management of fish and game in the state. As a lifelong
resident, she remembers what federal management did to the country
before statehood. It was a disaster. She also does not want to
give up her rights to fish and game because of where she lives.
She is tired of having some people tell her that she does not
deserve something that her family has existed on for her entire
life. She thanks those for instigating the lawsuit. The
Governor's proposal only creates apartheid in the state when
Americans fought a war for equality. "Keep up the good work Mr.
Ogan. We respect and thank you. For those of you who don't
support an equal rights solution, shame on you."
MS. ANDREW further stated, not all rural areas would be eligible
for subsistence under the federal law, only those with CNT findings
would be eligible, according to a federal agent. These areas
could, however, "jump through the hoops" to try to get eligibility.
This was only one of the instances she discovered after meeting
with the federal government in Ketchikan. For some reason,
Ketchikan was left out in the beginning and was told, even if there
were only two people left in the community, it would never be able
to be eligible for subsistence. "These Hitler Era tactics by the
feds to the state of Alaska have to be stop."
Number 2193
DONALD WESTLAND testified via teleconference in Ketchikan. He
commends the efforts of HB 406. Consumption is probably one of the
only ways to come about on the issue. The citizens were able to
vote on statehood, but were not able to vote on ANILCA.
CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN thanked and said goodbye to Representative James
for spending her Saturday with the House Resources committee.
MR. WESTLAND further stated changing the state constitution would
not get rid of federal management. Federal management will be here
until Title VIII of ANILCA is repealed. "We need to get our
representatives in Washington, D.C. to put their heavy foots down."
No matter what is done, however, there will be consequences. He
wondered about adding his name to the lawsuit.
TAPE 98-23, SIDE A
Number 0013
REPRESENTATIVE BARNES stated she would be happy to have any
Alaskans made party to the lawsuit. She is not sure how, but she
will try her very best.
Number 0044
REPRESENTATIVE BARNES asked Mr. Westland whether he has read the
amendments from Senator Stevens.
Number 0064
MR. WESTLAND replied he does not have them at his disposal.
REPRESENTATIVE BARNES suggested sending them to him. Over and over
she continues to hear people say that a constitutional amendment
allowing for a rural priority would allow the state to maintain
management of its fish and game when the opposite is true. If the
state is to adopt such a scheme, it would allow for federal
oversight by the Secretary of Interior and the court system.
Number 0122
MR. WESTLAND stated he lives in Ketchikan, but the United States
Post Office considers mail delivered to his house as a rural route
yet he is not a rural person.
CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN stated his mail is delivered to a rural route as
well.
Number 0224
MICHAEL PATKOTAK testified via teleconference in Barrow. He is
speaking today as a concerned Native. Representation by Joule,
Nicholia and Williams is commendable during such blatant
discrimination. Subsistence has been an ongoing issue for as long
as he can remember. He seems to hear to the same arguments that he
heard 27 years ago. It is ironic that the 1997 and 1998 Alaska
State Legislature would honor the heroine of Native civil rights
leader, Elizabeth Peratrovich, when we Natives are being denied the
very basic and fundamental of civil rights - safe drinking water
and waste facilities - and now the backbone of Native life -
subsistence. He is fortunate to have been born in Barrow where the
resources are plentiful, but historically we have never been
afforded protection under the state constitution. Had Article
VIII, Section 4 been applied without regard to special interests,
ANILCA and the interception of federal authority would have been
unnecessary. It seems that urban districts interprets language as
it benefits them. House Bill 406 stinks of Alaska Outdoor
Council's influence. For the sake of humanity, this nation was
founded by men of many nationalities and backgrounds on the
principle that all men are created equal and when the rights of one
man are diminished the rights of all men are threatened. It is
obvious that Alaska has faulted on its promissory note in regards
to Natives. Alaska has given its Native people a bad check, a
check that has been return for non-sufficient funds. For many
years the replenishable resources in and on Native lands have been
exploited by those in urban districts either by commercial or sport
hunters at the cost of Native consumption and use. We are
concerned because the legislative arm of Alaska has ignored the
voice of Alaska to bring the amendment option to a vote. At the
last poll more than 60 percent approve of voting on an amendment.
It is time for all of those concerned in the Native communities to
consider boycotting Fairbanks and Anchorage for services and goods.
This can be done by moving AFN and other conventions to villages
like Dillingham, Bethel, Nome and Barrow. It is time for a change
and it is time to elect leadership that will call discrimination
for what it is - unacceptable.
Number 0602
REPRESENTATIVE BARNES stated from all that she knows Elizabeth
Peratrovich was for the rights of all people, not just a few. Mr.
Patkotak just presented the argument of why we should not treat one
group of people differently than another. He quoted the sections
in the constitution that apply to non-discrimination yet he asks us
to discriminate. He also said that the legislature has blatantly
discriminated against safe water and sewer when hundreds of
millions of dollars have been spent on developing sewer and water
systems based on need. There is not a community in the state that
should not have safe water and sewer.
Number 0735
DON SHERWOOD, Board Member, Alaska Boating Association, testified
via teleconference in Anchorage. He has been a consumptive user
and has fed his family on fish and game in this country for over 30
years. This act is a step in maintaining our state constitution
for "all" people of Alaska. The catalyst of the bill is in Section
1(b)(1), "a preference for personal and family use of fish and game
for sustenance that parallels the Congressional intent underlying
the subsistence preference under Title VIII of the Alaska National
Interest Lands Conservation Act (P.L. 96-487) but does not violate
the fundamental constitutional rights of Alaskans to sustenance,
equal protection, and common use of fish and game under the
Constitution of the State of Alaska." Alaska's constitution
guarantees equal standing and common use of resources, and access
to the resources must be protected at all costs. If we bow to the
federal government and change our constitution, we will split our
state right in half and pit two cultures against each other with no
acceptable solution for either.
Number 0876
CHARLES McKEE testified via teleconference in Anchorage. The bill
refers to equal protection of our rights, but the only place within
the United States Constitution that allows for specific and limited
rights is in Article I, Section 8 in terms of copyrights and
patents. Other than that, people cannot be denied their common
rights to access subsistence resources. When talking about fish
and game in terms of the characteristics and socioeconomic's of an
area, it is important to use the proper math. The Department of
Fish and Game better recognize a person's legal right to property
when using technology to evaluate who gets what and who gets access
to what.
Number 1195
DONNA HARRIS-FLEAGLE, Vice President, Tanana Chiefs Conference,
Incorporated, testified via teleconference in Anchorage. She
resides at Harris Hill Homestead five miles outside of the rural
community of McGrath. She also serves on several local, regional
and statewide boards. The issue in HB 406 is very important to
those who continue to practice an ancient and honorable way of
life. The outcome of this crisis will shape and define fish and
game resource management for the future, while attempting to meet
the rural priority clause in Title VIII of ANILCA. Our position
remains to protect the intent of Title VIII, to protect rural
Alaska in a time of shortage. The provision makes common sense for
rural Alaska. House Bill 406 does not accomplish that goal.
Subsistence is defined by Alaskan Native culture as a way of life
that was practiced by our ancestors long before the appearance of
a western culture in Alaska, and as a way of life that continues
and will continue regardless of any attempt to sever that
relationship. "We will preserve that way of life and will continue
to teach our children the ways to do so." In addition, by
replacing the word "subsistence" with "sustenance" the meaning is
eroded and clearly defined by cultural values that are different
than Alaska's Natives. "Subsistence" in the dictionary means to
remain in existence or to support or maintain with provisions.
"Sustenance" in the dictionary means food that sustains life or
health. Please consider how a few changed words can alter what is
being said. A subsistence lifestyle will never, by any stretch of
the imagination, be replaced with a sustenance lifestyle. By
replacing the cultural-based ties to the land and its resources, it
becomes a classic western description of what animals mean. By
creating a system based on need thereby opening up subsistence to
all Alaskans, and by not satisfying Title VIII of ANILCA, is an
unacceptable solution. She urged the committee members to consider
the ramification of such a solution that does not validate the
cultural, traditional, nutritional, medicinal and spiritual needs
of Alaska's indigenous people. It seems that somewhere, in all of
the progress as the new millennium approaches, that moral
responsibilities have shifted to individual responsibilities and
rights. The decisions that affect families should be required by
Alaskans to set policies on. The one-size-fits-all approach that
is being advanced is not realistic, workable, or a sign of an
advanced society of finding a way to creatively and collaboratively
form partnerships for the populace that reflect local and regional
factors. It is ordinary people that realize change is a process,
not an event. Accommodating diversity is a strength. Let's work
on a solution that meets the intent of federal law and truly
provides for Alaska's rural subsistence needs in a time of
shortage. Let's allow the people of Alaska to decide by voting on
a constitutional amendment that would create a true rural priority
of fish and game allocation in a time of shortage for local users.
Perhaps then we can start to work on maintaining healthy
populations to sustain a high level of harvest, and hopefully we
will never find ourselves in a time of true shortage.
Number 1446
JOHN ELUSKA JR., Representative, Shageluk Native Village (IRA),
testified via teleconference in Shageluk. People over here are
really dependent on subsistence. It has been that way all of our
lives. We are really dependent on fish, moose, beaver, grouse,
geese, muskrat, berries, bear, and whatever else is out there. If
people were to take it away we would probably end up in starvation
like Africa. Our dependence is such that we use lard from bear to
cook. There are no jobs around here. People are really, really
dependent on a subsistence lifestyle. They are really dependent
too on trapping as a way of income. We don't firefight in the
winter time.
Number 1590
PHILLIP ARROW testified via teleconference in Shageluk. He is an
elder from Shageluk. He does not understand much, but has heard
that the legislature is trying to close subsistence. We are really
dependent on it. We don't have money like the white people around
here. They are the ones that really don't know subsistence and
they are trying to close it. How come you did not give us much
notice? We just got a letter yesterday asking to post a notice.
There are a lot of guys in town that want to say something too.
Number 1642
REPRESENTATIVE BARNES thanked the elder for testifying, but he
should know that we are not trying to close subsistence. The bill
does not in any way close his subsistence. In addition, the notice
for the meeting went out one week ago.
Number 1678
BART testified via teleconference in Barrow. There is only one
person who controls Unit 26, but there is not one wildlife person
up here even though we are on fertile land. The legislators know
why. They leave us alone is because we are subsistence people.
But, we have to take care of the problem today when the legislators
will leave tomorrow. We fought for the lands and legislators come
in and out. His father, grandfather and great-grandfather have
said that they are just here to stay; they will be gone.
Number 1894
REPRESENTATIVE WILLIAMS announced he has to go home now to get
something to eat. He will watch on television.
Number 1938
DALE BONDURANT testified via teleconference in Anchorage. He
opposes amending the state constitution in any way that subjugates
common use. He supports personal consumptive use as the highest
and best use of our public trust - the common property fish and
wildlife resources. In a recent state supreme court case, the
definition of preference of uses and equality of users was defined
and remanded the ruling back to the Board of Fisheries to do
something about it. He is confident that the issue is going to end
up in court.
Number 2035
REPRESENTATIVE BARNES pointed out that Mr. Bondurant has been
involved in the fish and game resources for some 30 to 40 years.
He has consistently used his own money to help ensure that the
resources are maintained on a sustained yield principle for the
common use of all the people. He is to be commended.
Number 2056
MR. BONDURANT replied he appreciates the words. He is trying to do
that. He has a real love for Alaska. It has treated him well. He
is trying to retain something for future generations.
Number 2080
SELINA EVERSON, Subsistence Chair, Alaska Native Sisterhood,
testified in Juneau. There is no doubt of our deep commitment and
preservation of our customary and traditional lifestyle. This was
demonstrated by more than 600 Natives in Anchorage during the
subsistence summit. "Customary" says habitual, based on custom or
tradition. "Tradition" is a time-honored practice. We were born
into this lifestyle. She is especially committed to the rural
residents that depend on this lifestyle just to survive. We cannot
stress enough the importance of settling the issue with fairness to
"all" concerned. We only ask for fairness, to all people. Our
food and the preservation of our food is an intricate part of our
culture and tradition. Our ancestors are known for their longevity
probably because our foods were prepared without artificial color,
flavor or preservatives. She hopes the committee members will come
to understand from the testimony today what the word "subsistence
lifestyle" means. The late chair of the Alaska Native Sisterhood
said to the Southeast Native Subsistence Commission, "Our food is
essential to our physical, spiritual and emotional well being."
Number 2188
REPRESENTATIVE DYSON asked Ms. Everson whether it is her position
that access to traditional foods should be available to non-rural
Alaskan Natives.
MS. EVERSON replied, "Yes."
Number 2202
REPRESENTATIVE BARNES asked Ms. Everson whether she lives in
Juneau.
MS. EVERSON replied, "Yes."
REPRESENTATIVE BARNES stated Ms. Everson qualifies for subsistence
at this time under the present laws.
MS. EVERSON replied, "It sounds correct to me."
REPRESENTATIVE BARNES stated under Title VIII of ANILCA Ms. Everson
would not qualify.
MS. EVERSON replied under Title VIII of ANILCA she would not
qualify.
REPRESENTATIVE BARNES stated there are some of us who feel that is
not right. We have tried to work towards a solution that would
take care of the needs of all people - urban or rural.
Number 2242
SHARON LEE testified in Juneau. She is a resident of Juneau. She
is a Tlingit. She has not always been very civically minded. She
is just now getting into political issues and how they affect her
people. She thanked the committee members for their patience today
because they have been here since 9:00 a.m. It has been an ongoing
battle. "You can't satisfy people all the time," she said. Our
culture involves our spiritual well being. Our faith in God has
always gone hand-n-hand with our culture. She prayed on her way to
the capitol building because she felt intimidated to testify. But
the Lord spoke and said that he loves her, and he will always be
with and go before her. He also said that, "Your people are my
people and I love you and I love my people, but I also love them."
He gave her an image of the committee members and how much he loves
them too. She wanted to patently say honor the agreements already
made to the state and constitution. But, there have also been
agreements made with the Native people - ANILCA and ANCSA. "It's
like your between a rock and a hard place," she said. In addition,
she is concerned about losing her people's heritage when she is
starting to become proud of who she is. Subsistence has always
been a part of our culture. She asked the committee members to
keep all of the agreements in mind, honor them, listen to the
concerns of the people testifying, and look to God to come up with
a good, workable solution that would not only take care of
Alaskans, but the original settlers. We were the people that were
originally here which is one of the reasons why the United States
government tries to look after our needs.
TAPE 98-23, SIDE B
Number 0000
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN stated that we can work out a solution just as
God has worked out a solution for Ms. Lee.
MS. LEE stated she felt bad because she had not prayed for the
committee members so she did before arriving.
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN replied we appreciate it sincerely.
Number 0020
REPRESENTATIVE BARNES stated it has been a long day for everybody,
and Ms. Lee's testimony is the perfect way to end it.
Number 0050
CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN announced the bill will be heard again on Tuesday,
March 3, 1998; and Thursday, March 5, 1998.
ADJOURNMENT
Number 0060
CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN adjourned the House Resources Standing Committee
meeting at 2:35 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|