Legislature(1995 - 1996)
04/10/1995 03:39 PM Senate RES
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
SENATE RESOURCES COMMITTEE
April 10, 1995
3:39 P.M.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Senator Loren Leman, Chairman
Senator Drue Pearce, Vice Chairman
Senator Rick Halford
Senator Robin Taylor
Senator Georgianna Lincoln
Senator Lyman Hoffman
COMMITTEE MEMBERS ABSENT
Senator Steve Frank
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
SENATE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 19
Requesting the Congress to amend the Alaska National Interest Lands
Conservation Act to clarify that the term "public lands" means only
federal land and water and that any extension of federal
jurisdiction onto adjacent land and water is expressly prohibited.
PREVIOUS SENATE COMMITTEE ACTION
SJR 19 - See Resources Committee minutes dated 3/29/95 and 4/8/95.
WITNESS REGISTER
Senator Mike Miller
State Capitol
Juneau, AK 99801-1182
POSITION STATEMENT: Prime sponsor of SJR 19.
Carl Rosier
Tongass Sport Fishing Association
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported SJR 19.
Dale Kelly, Executive Director
Alaska Trollers Association
130 Seward St, Suite 213
Juneau, AK 99801
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported SJR 19.
Dean Paddock, Executive Director
Bristol Bay Driftnetters Association
P.O. Box 21951
Juneau, AK 99802
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported SJR 19.
Jerry McCune, President
United Fishermen of Alaska
211 Fourth Street, #112
Juneau, AK 99801
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported SJR 19.
Alfred McKinley, Sr.
Alaska Native Brotherhood
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed SJR 19.
Arnold Martin, President
Southeast Native Subsistence Committee
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed SJR 19.
Rosita Worl, Member
Alaska Federation of Natives
1577 C Street, #100
Anchorage, AK 99503
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed SJR 19.
Rick Bearman
Territorial Sportsmen
Juneau, AK 99801
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported SJR 19.
Bud Hodson
Alaska Sportfishing Industry Association
P.O. Box 220288
Anchorage, AK 99516
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported SJR 19.
John Hendrickson
Alaska Waterfowl Association
3195 A Lakeshore Dr., #102
Anchorage, AK 99517
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported SJR 19.
Joanne Grace, Assistant Attorney General
Department of Law
1031 W 4th Ave., #200
Anchorage, AK 99501
POSITION STATEMENT: Commented on SJR 19.
Richard Burton
4459 Mountainside Dr.
Juneau, AK 99801
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported SJR 19.
Catherine Gitkov
2245 Meadow Lane
Auke Bay, AK
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported SJR 19.
Peter Tony
Nikolai, AK
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed SJR 19.
Andy Golia
Bristol Bay Native Association
P.O. Box 310
Dillingham, AK 99576
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed SJR 19.
Michael Pederson
Arctic Circle Native Association
P.O. Box 1232
Barrow, AK 99723
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed SJR 19.
Suzy Erlich
Alaska Federation of Native
Box 565
Kotzebue, AK
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed SJR 19.
John Erlich
Box 297
Kotzebue, AK 99752
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed SJR 19.
Art Ivanoff, Subsistence Coordinator
Maniilaq Association
Box 256
Kotzebue, AK 99752
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed SJR 19.
Sandra Tahbone, Chairman
Natural Resources Subsistence Committee
Kawerak, Inc.
Box 948
Nome, AK 99762
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed SJR 19.
Bob Charles, Vice President
Association of Village Council Presidents
P.O. Box 219
Bethel, AK 99559
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed SJR 19.
Calvin Simeon
Association of Village Council Presidents
P.O. Box 219
Bethel, AK 99559
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed SJR 19.
Lee Stoner
940 Serrano Dr.
Wasilla, AK 99654
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported SJR 19.
Greg Roczicka
P.O. Box 513
Bethel, AK 99559
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed SJR 19.
Keith Jonathan
P.O. Box 126
Tok, AK 99780
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed SJR 19.
Deborah Lyons
P.O. Box 296
Petersburg, AK 99833
POSITION STATEMENT: Commented on SJR 19.
Gordon Jensen
P.O. Box 264
Petersburg, AK 99833
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported SJR 19.
Fred John, Jr.
P.O. Box 6024
Mentasta Lake, AK 99780
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed SJR 19.
Gloria Stickwan
Copper River Native Association
Drawer H
Copper Center, AK 99573
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed SJR 19.
Robert Hinman
P.O. Box 34195
Juneau, AK 99803
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported SJR 19.
Carl Rosier
c/o John Sandor
Juneau, AK 99801
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported SJR 19.
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 95-41, SIDE A
Number 001
SJR 19 ASK FEDS TO AMEND ANILCA
CHAIRMAN LEMAN called the Senate Resources Committee meeting to
order at 3:39 p.m. and announced SJR 19 to be up for consideration.
SENATOR MILLER, prime sponsor of SJR 19, stated that the resolution
asks congress to clarify that ANILCA did not mean there would be
take over of Alaska's management of fish and game and, secondly, it
defines public lands so there can be no misinterpretation by the
courts.
SENATOR MILLER noted a letter of support from former Governor
Hickel in which he stated this is a state's rights issue whether
one agrees with rural preference or not.
SENATOR LEMAN noted that when Alaska became a state one of the big
issues was the management of our fish and game. He did not want to
criticize federal management, but Alaska has fared much better
under state management and he thought it would be much better to
continue under state management.
SENATOR LINCOLN said she has consistently maintained that this is
a subsistence bill. She responded to Governor Hickel's letter by
adding that he said this issue is not solely a subsistence issue;
it is a state's rights issue as well.
In talking about subsistence she is concerned that the Chairman, in
attempting to get testimony from all over Alaska, took testimony
from Fairbanks only (unless folks can get in to Fairbanks from
outlying areas), from Soldotna only, and now today from Juneau.
That leaves the rest of the state - 212 communities that are trying
to testify as well.
She commented that SJR 19 would drive a deeper wedge between the
special interest groups rather than build a consensus on such a
critical issue.
SENATOR LEMAN responded that the committee had done its best to
take the issue to a broad cross section of the state. They have
heard this resolution far more than what would normally happen. In
Fairbanks many people came in from outlying regions and testified
and the same thing happened in Soldotna.
CARL ROSIER, Tongass Sport Fishing Association, strongly supported
SJR 19. He said it is ironic after 36 years of successful
statehood and state management that we are here today developing a
strategy to avoid preemption of fish and game management by the
federal government.
The State, through Title 16, developing an advisory committee
system, plus a commitment of time and energy of many residents in
the international fisheries arenas, has developed a management
program about which all residents should be proud.
He noted that the feds had little respect for the state
participants, in the early days, on the International North Pacific
Fisheries Council (INPFC). He added that the state has been
involved in the bi-laterals that preceded extended jurisdiction, we
were deeply involved in moving the foreign fisheries off-shore, we
have been a strong participant in IPHC and the interstate compacts.
The state has had the expertise to look after the residents of this
state. This will be seriously jeopardized if we prevent the feds
from taking over the resources we have invested so much in over the
last 36 years. This is not an action against subsistence, but it
is a states' rights issue that is important to all of the residents
of this state.
Number 242
DALE KELLY, Executive Director, Alaska Trollers Association (ATA),
supported SJR 19. She said they recognized the importance of
subsistence in Alaska and believes SJR 19 poses no threat to
subsistence uses.
ATA's main concern is with the loss of state jurisdiction over our
fisheries resource. Any use of this resolution to eliminate
subsistence is not supported by them.
ATA believes clarifying the definition of public lands is only one
of a number of ANILCA terms which must be clarified if Alaska,
through the Board of Fisheries, is to retain management authority
over its fisheries. ATA has never viewed an amendment to the
Constitution as a solution to the subsistence dilemma.
During a recent legislative briefing, Attorney General Bruce
Botelho was asked what Alaska law could be changed to prevent
federal management. He answered that we all know there is none and
emphasized that in virtually every case presented to the Ninth
Circuit Court of Appeals, the Court has favored the subsistence use
over the adverse interest of the state. The problem for fishermen
is that the Ninth Circuit has done a poor job of interpreting
ANILCA provisions such as "rural" and "customary trade." Because
of the federal court, residents of all but four Alaskan communities
qualify as rural subsistence users and can sell subsistence product
for significant financial gain while commercial fishermen might not
be able to do the same, if it is closed for allocation purposes.
These bad rulings from the Ninth Circuit Court constrain the Board
of Fisheries from making management decisions appropriate for
Alaska because of the threat of added federal interference.
MS. KELLY also noted that it's particularly ironic to endorse a
resolution in support of state jurisdiction of our fish and game
resources when the legislature appears hell bent to make crippling
budgetary cuts to the two agencies necessary to defend our
interests. The Attorney General's office is slated to take a
significant hit just when we need them most for Pacific Salmon
Treaty and Endangered Species Act issues. ADF&G is contending with
some of its biggest issues since statehood, but the Senate budget
proposal mirrors a 1979 spending level when the dollar was a bit
stronger. Core research and management programs are at risk which
will compromise the health of the resource in our fisheries.
Elimination of the Subsistence Division will further polarize
groups that must work together to resolve subsistence once and for
all.
Finally, she said, SJR 19 provides an opportunity for those
dependent upon Alaska's fisheries resource to engage in a positive
dialogue regarding technical amendments to ANILCA to ensure that
Alaskans clarify subsistence definitions, not some judge in a
distant court room.
Number 296
DEAN PADDOCK, Executive Director, Bristol Bay Driftnetter
Association, said if there was ever a motherhood and apple pie
issue before this committee, that this should be it. SJR 19 is
clear and unambiguous, even if the issue it seeks to clarify may
not be. The original intent of the Statehood Act needs to be
cleared up without delay. He was a member of the state management
team at statehood and after and said we face staggering challenges.
We have successfully risen to those challenges with rare exception
in the matter of resource management. He remembers the arrogant
and largely uncaring attitude of many of the federal managers.
He is saddened to see there is not total and complete unanimity
within the state today. If the issue of state sovereignty is not
cleared up shortly and we go down the trail of federal management,
or mismanagement, we will all deeply regret the fact we did not
defend state jurisdiction.
Number 345
JERRY MCCUNE, President, United Fishermen of Alaska, supported SJR
19 as a statement of state's rights and its ability to manage fish
and game for all the users in the state. It does not challenge the
concept of state and federal subsistence preference. It doesn't
solve all the issues, but does address quite a few of them. One of
them is that it states that ANILCA should not preempt state
management of fish and game in Alaska and another issue is the
state's right to manage all resources on state lands and navigable
waters. It makes a statement important to many states that the
federal government should not be able to claim title to resources
through federal reserve water rights or navigable water rights.
Along with SJR 19 we need to fund ADF&G in a manner that can be
committed to all users to provide for all users in the state. We
need to reauthorize the 1992 state subsistence statute and keep the
definitions that are in that statute, like "customary, traditional,
and reasonable opportunity." The all-Alaska concept, which is
unfair to villages dependent on subsistence, needs work as well as
the weak stock issue which ties into the Endangered Species Act.
MR. MCCUNE said they would like to see ANILCA amended with the
definitions of "rural, customary, and trade, customary and
traditional, and reasonable opportunity vs. guarantee." The weak
stock issue also needs to be addressed. The last thing would be a
constitutional amendment, if we can get these other amendments to
ANILCA.
Number 374
SENATOR HOFFMAN asked how he would propose that Katie John get
access to her subsistence fish. MR. MCCUNE replied that the lands
she wants to use are claimed as traditional lands at the head of
the Copper River which is where the stocks separate. ADF&G has
offered other sites for her take her fish, but she wants to use the
traditional site. The problem is they are scared she will take too
many fish from one particular tributary.
SENATOR HOFFMAN pointed out that he also said he liked the language
in state statute on "customary and traditional use." MR. MCCUNE
clarified that referenced villages as opposed to individuals. He
added that the last resort on subsistence should be the true users
as in the villages of the rural areas.
SENATOR LEMAN commented that he thought Mr. McCune meant that
sometimes managers would have to make some decisions, to protect
subsistence as well as other uses, where those traditional uses may
be in conflict with good management.
Number 400
ALFRED MCKINLEY, SR., Alaska Native Brotherhood, said when the
Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act of 1971 became law, the
conference committee of the U.S. Senate and House expected the
Secretary of Interior and the State of Alaska to use their existing
authorities to take action necessary to predict the separate needs
of the Alaska natives. The failure of the federal and state
government to heed congressional admonition caused natives to seek
a solution through federal legislation, known now as ANILCA. He
opposed SJR 19, because it would nullify recent native subsistence
victories in U.S. District Court. At least 60% of Native
subsistence takes place in navigable waters in Alaska.
ARNOLD MARTIN, President, Southeast Native Subsistence Commission,
said that Native harvest of subsistence accounts for less than 4%
of the wild renewable resources on an annual basis. Forty-eight
percent of rural residents are native and 52% are non-native.
Sixteen percent of urban residents are native, 84% are non-native.
These statistics show it is hardly significant enough to harm our
wild renewable resources. He thought the state was preoccupied in
destroying and killing native cultures. SJR 19 will not help
return the fish and game management to the state. He opposed the
resolution.
ROSITA WORL, Member of the Board of Directors, Alaska Federation of
Natives, urged the committee not to adopt SJR 19, because it fails
to deal with the basic subsistence issue which is not management
authority or state's rights, or equal access to common use
resources, but rather the continued existence or rural Alaskan
villages in the face of overwhelming urban competition for fish and
game.
SJR 19 asks congress to eviscerate Title 8 of ANILCA by reducing
federal regulatory authority and geographical jurisdiction to
almost nothing, she said. Senator Stevens warned the legislature
that the subsistence issue will not be resolved by congress. Any
long term solution will require a consensus among Alaskans which is
not what this resolution tries to create.
Number 511
SENATOR TAYLOR said he thought she wanted to retain state
management. MS. WORL agreed that was what they would all
ultimately like. SENATOR TAYLOR asked if she would disagree with
Mr. McKinley and others who very openly support petitions to the
Secretary of the Interior to take over management of fish and game
on behalf of the federal government and lawsuits where they are
asking the federal courts to take over jurisdiction of all fish and
game management in Alaska.
MS. WORL responded she thought the native community wanted good
sound management that protects subsistence. As they see it, there
is a lack of the state wanting to implement legislation and not
wanting to amend the constitution and is, therefore, not willing to
protect subsistence.
SENATOR TAYLOR said a month ago they discussed this subject at
length with Attorney General Bothelo who indicated very clearly
that amending the Constitution of the State of Alaska would not
return management of these resources to this state, but an
amendment of ANILCA would still be required to return management to
the state. He thought the last thing any Alaskan would want would
be to put the federal government back in managing our fish,
caribou, and everything else.
MS. WORL responded that ANILCA does offer the protections when the
state is not in compliance. Amending the Constitution could put us
into compliance. She thought this is what Senator Stevens was
suggesting. SENATOR TAYLOR said Senator Stevens hadn't suggested a
constitutional amendment for the last two years.
RICK BEARMAN, President, Territorial Sportsmen, said they were an
organization since before the statehood movement. They were
prominent in the statehood movement primarily to secure management
of Alaska's fish and wildlife resources from the federal
government. That issue was the catalyst of the statehood movement.
Today, decades later, we are fighting the same battle.
The Territorial Sportsmen supports SJR 19. He thought it was
inconceivable to think it was congress's intent to take management
away from those who are best able to do the job and give it to
unconcerned and inept bureaucrats in Washington.
Number 584
BUD HODSON, Alaska Sportfishing Industry Association, supported SJR
19. As a past chairman of the Board of Fisheries, he said that
fisheries management decisions are complex matters. The input of
all users must be considered to make decisions that are fair. If
the authority granted to the federal government under ANILCA is
extended to include state land and waters, only the considerations
of one user group will be considered.
TAPE 95-41, SIDE B
Number 598
MR. HODSON concluded saying that he thought it was imperative that
the state maintain authority over fish and game management.
JOHN HENDRICKSON, Alaska Waterfowl Association, said that ANILCA
was not intended to apply federal management to state lands. He
supported SJR 19. It's absurd to think that public lands is
intended to mean state lands. He thought that the subsistence issue
has become a diversion, because no one is really suffering one way
or another. All we are doing is debating it.
MS. GRACE'S TESTIMONY IS TRANSCRIBED VERBATIM
JOANNE GRACE, Assistant Attorney General, Department of Law, said
the Department presently is representing the state in litigation
raising the issues addressed in SJR 19. The state's position in
this litigation generally corresponds to the resolution's request
for amendment. Nevertheless, the administration's position is that
although amendment to ANILCA might be part of a final solution to
the subsistence dilemma in Alaska, we need consensus among Alaskans
about how to resolve the many problems rather than a solution
imposed by lawmakers in Washington, D.C.
The administration's goals are to regain state management of fish
and wildlife for all lands in Alaska and to preserve the rural
priority. The amendments that SJR 19 suggests differ in one
respect from the issues in litigation. SJR 19 addresses two issues
which we refer to as the "Where I" issue and the "Where II" issue.
The "Where I" issue is the question of whether the subsistence
priority and the FSB's management authority extend to navigable
waters in Alaska. The plaintiffs in the Katie John litigation
argue, and Judge Holland held, that they do, for this reason. The
subsistence priority applies to "public lands." Generally "public
lands" are understood to mean federal lands, but Congress can
define this term differently in different contexts. In ANILCA,
Congress defined "public lands" and "lands, waters, and interests
therein, title to which is in the United States." I believe that
Congress thought it was defining public lands and federally-owned
lands. The Katie John plaintiffs argued, however, that if the
United States has any property interest in lands or waters, that
converts them to "public lands" under this definition, regardless
of who owns them. Thus, they argue, if the United States has a
water right in a river, the river is "public lands" subject to
federal management.
The United States does not claim to have title to these state and
private lands, as SJR 19 seems to imply. Lines 21-22 on page two
and 9-10 on page three refer to a claim of federal title to land
and resources based on federal reserved water rights or the
navigational servitude. The plaintiffs' claim is not that the
United States owns the land and resources based on these doctrines,
but that it has authority to regulate fish and wildlife on lands
and waters subject to federal water rights, navigational servitude,
or any other federal property interest. In other words, the
existence of any federal interest mandates federal regulation.
The status of the litigation is as follows. The "Where I" issue,
that I've described, was decided by the U.S. District Court last
March. Judge Holland held that all navigable waters in Alaska are
public lands subject to ANILCA because the United States has title
to the navigational servitude. The state and the United States
appealed this to the Ninth Circuit. On appeal both the state and
the United States argue that navigational servitude does not
convert waters into public lands, but the United States argues that
some waters are public lands by virtue of the United States' water
rights. The court heard oral argument in February and has the case
under advisement.
The "Where II" issue, that is the issue of whether the Departments
of Agriculture and Interior have authority to regulate fish and
wildlife on state and private lands to effect the subsistence
priority on public lands, is currently before the district court in
four different cases. The court has indicated that it will not
address his issue while the U.S. considers a petition by the
Northwest Arctic Regional Corporation to promulgate regulations to
extend the FSB's authority off public lands.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify.
SENATOR TAYLOR asked if the administration has changed its position
and no longer opposes the Katie John case. MS. GRACE replied that
wasn't the case, at all. The state is maintaining its position on
these two issues in litigation. Her point is only that the
administration sees the amendment to ANILCA as part of a solution,
but not exclusively the solution. They believe that the solution
includes a constitutional amendment, as you know.
SENATOR TAYLOR responded that he knows the administration believes
a constitutional amendment is preferred by them as part of a
solution, but isn't it true that a complete and total solution of
this issue could be resolved by merely amending ANILCA on the
federal level. MS. GRACE said she wasn't sure what he meant by a
complete solution to the problem.
SENATOR TAYLOR commented, "Try repealing it. Does that resolve the
subsistence problem?" MS. GRACE replied that the administration's
position is to regain state management of fish and wildlife for all
lands and to preserve the rural priority.
SENATOR TAYLOR asked her if she supported this resolution. MS.
GRACE replied that the Department of Law is taking almost exactly
the same position in its litigation. In other words, our position
is that congress did not intend the subsistence priority to apply
to navigable waters and did not intend to give the Departments of
Agriculture and Interior authority to regulate fish and wildlife
off of the ground.
SENATOR TAYLOR asked if that could be taken as a "yes." MS. GRACE
replied, "Yes, with one proviso that the administration sees this
as only part of the solution, not as the only solution."
SENATOR TAYLOR said she indicated the federal government had
argued, and felt there was some authority for, the retention of a
federal property right, if any, and no matter how minuscule,
federal property right were retained. He asked if that gave the
federal government the right to enforce federal law on those
private lands.
MS. GRACE replied that that was the position the plaintiffs took
and that was the position accepted by the Federal District Court.
You are correct about the retention of an interest by the United
States. There is a federal statute that provides that all lands
patented by the United States after 1890 are conveyed subject to
additions and easements. A district and canal's easement in the
United States, so the United States holds the property interests in
virtually all the land in Alaska.
SENATOR TAYLOR said, then, that under that theory, all of the land
in Alaska is under federal jurisdiction under Title 8, ANILCA, in
their interpretation. MS. GRACE replied, "In their interpretation,
but I'll argue that's absurd."
SENATOR TAYLOR responded that we haven't been very successful in
those arguments, have we. MS. GRACE commented that it hadn't
worked so far.
Number 480
SENATOR LINCOLN asked her to clarify her response to the question
of the administration's support of SJR 19. MS. GRACE said the
administration supports it as part of a larger package which
includes a constitutional amendment.
SENATOR LINCOLN asked if the administration supported SJR 19 as it
stands alone. MS. GRACE said she couldn't make that unequivicable
statement. She said the Department of Law unquestionably takes
this position in litigation. The administration has told the
Department of Law to continue to take this position in litigation,
but the administration sees the resolution of the entire
subsistence problem as including not just amendments to ANILCA, but
also a constitutional amendment.
SENATOR LINCOLN asked if the administration is in agreement with
the congressional delegation when they say that the congressional
action will be contingent on a firm state consensus and agreement
between the legislature, the governor, and affected entities within
our state. MS. GRACE said she wasn't sure she had a deep enough
understanding of what this administration's position is to feel
comfortable answering that question.
Number 454
RICHARD BURTON, Juneau resident, said he was Commissioner of the
Department of Public Safety until December 5, 1994. His standpoint
is from the enforcement perspective. He said the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Division has over 400 officers and a larger budget, and
more airplanes in the State of Alaska than the Alaska Division of
Fish and Wildlife Protection which has fewer than 100 people.
He said there was a difference in the conflicts between the federal
regulations and state regulations. Also, federal regulations have
no residency requirement, where the state has residency
requirements. In Yakutat, for instance, the federal regulation
allows one brown bear each per year, with no tag or seal for
harvest information and the state regulation says you can take one
bear every four years.
MR. BURTON commented that a lot of enforcement is not getting done
by the federal or the state government which hurts the resource.
He supported SJR 19 if it does what people say it will.
SENATOR TAYLOR asked if he was in the state before statehood. MR.
BURTON answered that he had been here since 1954 and had started
working with Fish and Wildlife at about that time. SENATOR TAYLOR
asked what the state of our salmon resources was at the end of
federal management. MR. BURTON said that was one of the biggest
arguments for statehood. Judge Arnold and the Seattle cannery bloc
held a tight rope on things. Seattle managed our fisheries through
the federal government.
SENATOR TAYLOR asked if he was familiar with the Skoog Report. MR.
BURTON replied no, but he remembered a picture of rotting caribou
that their people took. SENATOR TAYLOR asked what was the
motivation behind taking those pictures. MR. BURTON recalled that
it was up north and a caribou herd looked like it was suddenly
declining and that was the beginning of some management control -
back in the 70's. SENATOR TAYLOR asked if that was where the term
"subsistence" was coined. MR. BURTON couldn't say.
CATHERINE GITKOV, Juneau resident, supported the principles of SJR
19. She did not see it as anti-subsistence, but rather a request
for a clear definition of public land and a prohibition of federal
preemption of state fish and wildlife management on state and
private lands and waters of Alaska. She believed the state is
doing a fine job of managing the resources. The very idea of the
federal government having total control over these activities is
very scary. For instance, they punish Alaskan fishermen by
continuously reducing the number of chinook we can take to
compensate for the mismanagement down south. Without a
clarification of "public lands" she was afraid the federal
government would try to take over and we can't afford to see this
happen.
Number 334
PETER TONY, Nikolai resident, opposed SJR 19. He said Nikolai is
a very traditional village and it is one of the last areas of the
state that is still remote - accessible only by airplane. The
village of Nikolai opposed SJR 19, because they live largely on
subsistence. They want to be able to offer their children and
grandchildren the opportunity to enjoy their lifestyle and the
village can't compete with modern hunters and fishers and their
equipment.
ANDY GOLIA, Bristol Bay Native Association, opposed SJR 19, because
he thought the Bristol Bay region would suffer. Their villages
need to hunt and fish in order to survive. Fish and wildlife
resources know no boundaries and they need to travel long distances
between state and federal land to fulfill their subsistence needs.
MICHAEL PEDERSON, Arctic Circle Native Association, said he
represented subsistence users in the communities of Anaktuvik Pass,
Atqasuk, Kaktovik, Nuiqsut, Point Lay, and Wainwright. They
strongly opposed SJR 19. He reminded the committee that on March
30, 1994 in federal district court Judge Holland ruled that the
federal government has the legal authority to regulate subsistence
hunting and fishing on all such public lands and waters. The
federal law is the best protection subsistence users have in this
state. They believe the best solution to resolve the subsistence
impacting Alaska is an amendment to the Alaska Constitution
recognizing a rural subsistence priority.
Number 234
SUZY ERLICH, Alaska Nation of Natives, said she represented the
Kotzebue area. She objected to the time limitation imposed on
villagers who are testifying when people from the urban areas
ignored the time line. She also criticized the individual who
commented on the pictures of piles of dead caribou giving one the
impression that subsistence users were responsible. She severely
opposed SJR 19 mostly because the state, itself, has not determined
what is meant by subsistence. She said she would like to send the
committee samples of subsistence food, and while they enjoy eating,
she would like them to remember that food is their life blood. She
said she represented 11 villages in the Nana region.
JOHN ERLICH opposed SJR 19. He said it is mostly a subsistence
issue. He said he would like to resolve the subsistence dilemma
within the state, but he thought it would be harder if they passed
SJR 19, because it was so contentious.
SENATOR LEMAN noted that there was no linkage between HJR 33 and
SJR 19 in terms of movement through the Legislature.
ART IVANOFF, Subsistence Coordinator, Maniilaq Association, opposed
SJR 19. ANILCA provides subsistence protection to rural
communities in Alaska who need the protection from urban hunters,
based on their need to maintain their cultural and traditional
subsistence lifestyle. Alaskan residents must be given the
opportunity to vote and decide whether or not to amend the
constitution to allow for rural preference.
Number 101
SENATOR TAYLOR commented that he assumed the ducks and geese would
be arriving soon. MR. IVANOFF agreed. SENATOR TAYLOR asked if
they still hunted them in the spring. MR. IVANOFF replied that
they do. SENATOR TAYLOR asked if that was in compliance with the
federal law (under the Migratory Waterfowl Act) and the federal
enforcers that he wants to take over the river systems. SUZY
ERLICH replied that they were much more comfortable with federal
regulations because they are much more sensitive to their way of
living. She said they do continue to hunt.
SENATOR TAYLOR said he supported their right to hunt those ducks,
but the federal government does not support their right to hunt
those ducks. They are violating federal law and it's only because
the federal enforcers are playing politics and not arresting and
throwing people in jail over it. He said he had a hard time
believing it's o.k. as long as the federal enforcer looks the other
way. If he started enforcing the laws, he didn't think they would
like their law on federal duck control.
TAPE 95-42, SIDE A
Number 001
SANDRA TAHBONE, Chairman, Natural Resources Subsistence Committee,
Kawerak, Inc., referred to the Board of Fisheries handling of the
False Pass issue. It is obvious that in the area of fisheries
management, one of the key justifications for statehood, the State
of Alaska falls short. Fish and animals do not recognize unnatural
boundaries. For this reason the court has ruled repeatedly that
the federal government can enforce its management on adjacent
lands. The rulings from the Eighth and Ninth District Court make
SJR 19 frivolous and a waste of the Senate's valuable time. She
supported amending the State Constitution.
BOB CHARLES, Vice President, Operations, Association of Village
Council Presidents, opposed SJR 19. He said the state has not had
a good track record in managing the resources, especially in those
areas where stocks are declining. He noted that a number of people
weren't there because they thought the meeting would happen at a
different time.
SENATOR LEMAN responded that the Juneau Legislative Information
Office (LIO) had sent out misinformation about the time, but had
corrected the information within 30 minutes after it went out. He
apologized and said when they make mistakes, they try to correct
them as fast as possible.
SENATOR LINCOLN asked if other people had left, because of the
mixup. MR. CHARLES said that a number of people were not there.
SENATOR LINCOLN said they could still send in their written
testimony so it would still be on record.
Number 115
CALVIN SIMEON opposed SJR 19, because he believed the issue was
that ADF&G in western Alaska was severely underfunded. They don't
have enough money to manage the commercial fisheries and with
proposed cuts in the Subsistence Division, they felt it was
necessary to have the federal government involved so they can keep
an eye on the stocks of salmon.
SENATOR LEMAN asked him if he meant direct federal management or
federal oversite of state management. MR. SIMEON said he would
like to give the state another chance to be able to live up to
their requirements of sustained yield and a subsistence preference.
Basically they have failed to do that, but he would like federal
oversite.
Number 160
LEE STONER, Mat-Su, supported SJR 19. Our fish and game management
must be directed by Alaskans, he said. Federal control of fish and
game should be restricted only to land and waters specifically
delineated as federal land and water.
GREG ROCZICKA, Bethel, said that everyone has pretty much lost
faith with the way the state system is working as far as it goes to
protect subsistence. Subsistence users are practically always at
the end of the line.
KEITH JONATHON, Community Resource Coordinator, Tok, opposed SJR 19
saying it would only add fuel to the subsistence problem.
SENATOR LEMAN announced an at ease from 5:28 p.m. - 5:34 p.m.
Number 275
DEBORAH LYONS, Petersburg, said she thought the feds were doing a
little bit better at management than the state right now. She
thought it was very important for the state to manage for
subsistence through the fish and game laws. She thought it was
very important for natives to be able to eat their own food in
their home land, like she did as an Irishman. She said the
federal and state laws are written to try to protect subsistence.
The fact is that the state has not done as good a job for most
rural and native Alaskans as the federal government.
MS. LYONS thought the state had done a lot toward promulgating
subsistence regulations through McDowell, but then the feds came in
and offered more than that. She asked them to look at the position
the people are in who are testifying on this. She can understand
their lack of confidence.
SENATOR LINCOLN asked her to comment on whether she thought this
was a subsistence bill. MS. LYONS said she had listened to a lot
of the testimony and the Natives obviously think it is, but
implicit in the bill is that the rural subsistence users would have
to make a leap of faith. Personally, she thought the first
intention of the bill was to make it clear that the state has
management authority for subsistence. The second question was how
well they would manage it.
MS. LYONS said she supported the concept in SJR 19 of the state
being the managing entity, but she pointed out that she could hear
the criticisms and concerns from rural and subsistence users, as
well.
SENATOR LINCOLN asked her what she would recommend to resolve this
issue. MS. LYONS said the people of Alaska need to resolve what
subsistence management should be about. For instance, some people
in native communities think that subsistence food should not be
sold for cash.
Number 410
GORDON JENSEN, Petersburg, supported SJR 19, because it would keep
us from falling into federal management. Everything they do is
done poorly, he said. Salmon stocks and other stock just get lower
and lower and lower. By the time the state took over, we had very
little left to work with. He spent 20 years on the Board of Fish
and Game and understands some of the things that were done to
rehabilitate these stocks. He commented that it was very ironic
that we are talking about giving more control to the federal
government.
FRED JOHN, JR., Mentasta Lake, opposed SJR 19. He believed in
preserving the rural priority for the subsistence lifestyle. He
said there is a large waste of meat that comes from big game
hunters in his village area. "Right now," he said, "with the
attitude coming out of the legislature in Juneau, I believe the
federal government has more trust than the state has." He
explained that Katie John is his mother.
SENATOR LEMAN asked Mr. John what attitude he thought was coming
out of Juneau. MR. JOHN replied that in the newspapers there was
an attitude about Native people from different legislators. It
makes him feel bad, because he thinks they can all get along.
SENATOR LEMAN asked him what newspaper article he was referring to.
MR. JOHN said no one in Juneau knows anything about it, but people
in the rural areas do. It seems that the majority party is against
anything that is native.
SENATOR LEMAN asked him if he would be surprised to know that he
was raised in rural Alaska and that he is part Native. MR. JOHN
said he didn't know that.
GLORIA STICKWAN, Copper River Native Association, opposed SJR 19.
They want a rural priority for subsistence users and the state has
never protected rural subsistence rights. She supported amending
the State Constitution to comply with ANILCA.
Number 500
ROBERT HINMAN, Juneau resident, supported SJR 19 saying that the
push for statehood was fueled primarily by the urgent need to get
the federal government out of the management of our natural
resources, mostly fisheries. We enjoyed some good state management
and then federal controls were instituted over most phases of state
management. We can do something about the preemption of state's
rights to manage on state and private lands and waters by
clarification and actions asked for in SJR 19. He feared federal
takeover of fisheries management in state waters will have
catastrophic results on both commercial and sport fishing in the
state.
CARL ROSIER said that the former Commissioner of the Department of
Natural Resources, John Sandor, asked him to read his statement.
Mr. Sandor supported SJR 19, because it seeks insurance that the
State of Alaska will retain its management responsibilities for
fish and wildlife on state and private lands and navigable waters.
It is essential that the Congress of the United States reaffirm the
intent of the statehood compact and ANILCA that the state retains
this management responsibility. The President of the United States
and the Congress have expressed their support of returning rights
and authorities to the states.
He noted that as long as federal agencies continue to centralize
more of their decision making authorities in Washington, D.C. and
in regional headquarters in the lower 48 states, Alaska's people
and resources will be at greater risk.
SENATOR LINCOLN asked if they could hold the bill over another day
to receive more testimony from people who didn't get a chance to
speak and to review the proposed committee substitute. SENATOR
HOFFMAN agreed with that request.
Number 575
SENATOR HALFORD moved to adopt the committee substitute to SJR 19.
SENATOR LINCOLN objected because she didn't have time to review the
committee substitute. She asked if it was his intention to move
the bill today. SENATOR LEMAN said he would leave it up to the
committee. He personally had spent 13 hours in hearings plus many
other hours in preparing for it and he felt prepared to move it
from committee. SENATOR HOFFMAN said they just received the
committee substitute and should be allowed at least a day to look
at it before they vote on it.
SENATOR HALFORD explained the only difference was the last resolve
that the Alaska State Legislature respectfully requests the Alaska
Delegation of Congress to oppose any other amendments to ANILCA
until the Congress takes action to confirm state management and to
limit the definition of public lands.
TAPE 95-42, SIDE B
SENATOR LINCOLN asked what was the intent of any other amendments
to ANILCA. SENATOR HALFORD replied that since ANILCA has been
amended numerous times in the past, they continuously hear that it
can't be amended. If it can't be amended in the area of critical
state management, then it probably shouldn't be amended in other
areas either. SENATOR LINCOLN maintained her objection. SENATOR
LEMAN called for the roll. Senators Leman, Pearce, and Halford
voted yes; Senators Lincoln and Hoffman voted no; and the committee
substitute was adopted.
Number 579
SENATOR TAYLOR clarified that he strongly supported the right of
people north of a certain parallel in this state to take ducks and
geese in the spring of the year. It is the federal government that
says they cannot do it, not the state.
SENATOR HOFFMAN said that since there wasn't overwhelming committee
support for the resolution, he thought it should be voted down.
SENATOR LINCOLN noted that she listened to all of the testimony in
Fairbanks, Soldotna, and Juneau and kept track of the support and
opposition and there was truly an overwhelming number of people who
testified in opposition to SJR 19. She thought it was very clear
that many folks are confused about the intent of this resolution
and she didn't think we should ignore their voices.
Number 506
SENATOR HALFORD moved and asked unanimous consent to move CSSJR 19
(RES) with individual recommendations. SENATOR LINCOLN objected.
Senators Leman Frank, Halford, and Taylor voted yes; Senators
Lincoln and Hoffman voted no; Senator Pearce voted no, because she
didn't think they should move a committee substitute the committee
had just received; and the motion passed.
SENATOR LEMAN adjourned the meeting at 6:30 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|