Legislature(1997 - 1998)

04/15/1997 08:05 AM House STA

Audio Topic
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
txt
                                                                               
 HJR 21 - REQUESTING CONGRESS TO AMEND ANILCA                                
                                                                               
 The next order of business to come before the House State Affairs             
 Standing Committee was HJR 21, Relating to amendment of Title VIII            
 of the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act.                       
                                                                               
 Number 1885                                                                   
                                                                               
 CHAIR JAMES explained HJR 3 by Representative Ivan Ivan proposed a            
 resolution to the Constitution of the State of Alaska relating to             
 subsistence uses of fish and wildlife by residents.  She asked that           
 the testimony today include an opinion in regards to the concept of           
 a constitutional amendment.                                                   
                                                                               
 Number 1983                                                                   
                                                                               
 BEN HASTINGS was the first person to testify via teleconference in            
 Ketchikan.  He thanked Representatives Ogan and Masek for                     
 introducing HJR 21.  He had a problem with the federal government             
 running our lives which was exactly what was taking place under               
 ANILCA.  At the current time, the federal government was only                 
 allowed to control game management and we just experienced an                 
 example of this type of management in game management area number             
 two where a decision was made without consideration of state or               
 federal biologists.  There was no reason to shut the area to deer             
 hunting, but the council chose to close it down anyway.  The                  
 decision was based on greed, not need.  In October the federal                
 government would take over our fisheries, and after observing the             
 way the game was being dealt with, a takeover was totally                     
 unacceptable.  He further mentioned that there were some parts of             
 ANILCA that needed to be addressed - barter and trade for tens of             
 thousands of dollars, for example.  He was also concerned about the           
 definition of the term "rural".  Under ANILCA there were five areas           
 in Alaska that were not considered rural, such as, Ketchikan.                 
 "What I see happening is the federal government is moving back into           
 our lives and creating two classes of people - rural versus non-              
 rural.  And ladies and gentlemen, that is not only unacceptable,              
 but it is unconstitutional under our state constitution."  The                
 Governor's answer was to change the state's constitution, but when            
 ANILCA came about, the constitution was already in place.  "Leave             
 our constitution alone," he declared.                                         
                                                                               
 Number 2111                                                                   
                                                                               
 CHAIR JAMES asked Mr. Hastings if he had seen the language in HJR
 3?                                                                            
                                                                               
 MR. HASTINGS replied, "Yes."                                                  
                                                                               
 CHAIR JAMES asked Mr. Hastings if he agreed that this could be done           
 under Section IV of the Constitution of the State of Alaska?                  
                                                                               
 Number 2127                                                                   
                                                                               
 MR. HASTINGS replied he would have to study it before answering her           
 question.                                                                     
                                                                               
 CHAIR JAMES asked him to think about it and get back to her.                  
                                                                               
 Number 2140                                                                   
                                                                               
 JOHNNY RICE was the next person to testify via teleconference in              
 Ketchikan.  He felt the subsistence issue was the most important              
 one facing the state of Alaska.  He had not had the time to study             
 HJR 3, but he would read the language.  He strongly supported HJR
 21, as it stood now.  Title VIII of ANILCA was inherently flawed              
 and in direct conflict with the Tenth Amendment of the Constitution           
 of the United States.  He could not understand why ANILCA was                 
 viewed as a mighty policy immune to any type of amending in some              
 circles in the state.  If we without compromise amend our state               
 constitution to comply with a federal mandate, was that not in fact           
 surrendering our right as Alaskans to have a state government? he             
 asked.  "I myself do not see it stopping here."  He shuddered at              
 the thought of having a Washington D.C. commission set bag limits             
 and post fishery announcements in the state.  He cited an example             
 of two million acres of coal land in Utah taken over by the federal           
 government.  Utah did not have a very big voting base so "let's               
 just trample the state legislature."  Alaska was next, he                     
 announced, unless we send a clear message to the federal                      
 government.  We need to do everything possible to preserve a life             
 off of the land environment.                                                  
                                                                               
 Number 2229                                                                   
                                                                               
 CLARK WHITNEY was the next person to testify via teleconference in            
 Kenai.  He was a 35 year resident of Alaska and the father of 4               
 children.  We were all consumptive users of Alaska's wildlife                 
 resources.  He strongly urged the committee members to support HJR
 21 for fear of losing the right to the resources.  It had been                
 obvious so far that any intervention of the federal government in             
 the management of Alaska's resources had only served to divide the            
 state racially and politically.  The state had an excellent track             
 record of managing its fish and game in the past.  He was also                
 concerned about the financial ramifications of an expanded                    
 subsistence right in commercial fishing, guiding, timber and                  
 tourism.  As a resident of rural Alaska prior to ANILCA, he had               
 never observed a problem of the management of Alaska's fish and               
 game.  He announced he would not propose any amendment to the                 
 Constitution of the State of Alaska.                                          
                                                                               
 Number 2290                                                                   
                                                                               
 CHAIR JAMES explained she was more interested in the language of              
 HJR 3.  She was not proposing it as an amendment.                             
                                                                               
 MR. WHITNEY stated the ultimate goal of the Governor and those                
 opposing HJR 21 would be an amendment.                                        
                                                                               
 CHAIR JAMES replied she agreed with his assessment.  She did not              
 like amending the constitution, but the debate had been so far                
 either to amend ANILCA or the constitution.  There had not been               
 debate in the middle ground yet.                                              
                                                                               
 Number 2347                                                                   
                                                                               
 JOE HARDY was the next person to testify via teleconference in                
 Kenai.  The subsistence issue had been a divisive one on the Kenai            
 Peninsula.  The Governor dropped the ball when he withdrew the                
 state from the Babbitt lawsuit, therefore, the legislature needed             
 to represent the people of the state on this issue.  The                      
 Constitution of the State of Alaska held that fish and game was for           
 the common use for all of the people.  While the federal                      
 subsistence laws disenfranchised a vast majority of the people.  He           
 did not feel that an amendment was a reasonable solution to the               
 problem.  The resolution was a step in the right direction by                 
 putting pressure on the congressional delegation.  "Subsistence was           
 a big brother attempt to control Alaska's future.  The                        
 ramifications are onerous.  This will have long-term economic                 
 ramifications on Alaska's businesses if not resolved, not excluding           
 the sport use of our wildlife."  And this was only the subsistence            
 issue; the tribal rights controversy needed to be resolved as well.           
 House Joint Resolution 21 was a step in the right direction.  He              
 noted, as a side, that the Ninilchik Native Council was asking for            
 subsistence priority for grouse that had been transplanted in the             
 Kenai.  In addition, the middle ground was where the state was in             
 the mid-1970's when the boards made the seasons more favorable to             
 the local residents and when it was available to others who chose             
 to hunt in the area, for example.  Others were not disenfranchised.           
                                                                               
 Number 2460                                                                   
                                                                               
 CHAIR JAMES commented that the identification of subsistence                  
 "areas" as opposed to "users" was not intended under ANILCA.  She             
 asked Mr. Hardy if the identification of an area was a possible               
 solution to the problem?                                                      
                                                                               
 TAPE 97-43, SIDE B                                                            
 Number 0001                                                                   
                                                                               
 MR. HARDY replied yes and no.  The average state hunter had not               
 been disenfranchised from many areas, but it was coming based on              
 the way the subsistence board had been ruling.  There was a problem           
 if a subsistence hunter from Barrow could hunt on the Prince of               
 Wales Island, for example, when the local Ketchikan residents could           
 not hunt on the island themselves.                                            
                                                                               
 Number 0026                                                                   
                                                                               
 CHAIR JAMES commented that Senator Stevens was heard saying "local"           
 instead of "rural".  She asked Mr. Hardy if the identification of             
 local was a solution to the problem?                                          
                                                                               
 Number 0037                                                                   
                                                                               
 MR. HARDY replied as long as it did not disenfranchise non-rural or           
 non-local people from utilizing wildlife resources in an area.                
                                                                               
 Number 0046                                                                   
                                                                               
 CHAIR JAMES explained she had seen people disenfranchised from an             
 area because of other reasons besides subsistence.                            
                                                                               
 Number 0056                                                                   
                                                                               
 MR. HARDY said he did not disagree with a de facto approach.  He              
 believed that game reservations should benefit the locals.  If you            
 did not live in the area it was up to you to figure out how to                
 enter the area to hunt, but you should not be totally kept out of             
 the area.                                                                     
                                                                               
 Number 0083                                                                   
                                                                               
 CHARLIE CURTIS, President and CEO, NANA Regional Corporation, was             
 the next person to testify via teleconference in Kotzebue.  He                
 spoke today in opposition to HJR 21.  The NANA Regional Corporation           
 represents the interest of the people of the Northwest Arctic and             
 over 1,500 shareholders living in Anchorage, Fairbanks, and other             
 parts of the state.  The protections offered under ANILCA were                
 necessary for the people the corporation represented and the                  
 culture.                                                                      
                                                                               
 Number 0111                                                                   
                                                                               
 CHAIR JAMES asked Mr. Curtis if the solution was for the state to             
 define the terms "rural" and "customary and traditional" for the              
 purposes of subsistence uses as called for on page 2, line 26?                
                                                                               
 Number 0132                                                                   
                                                                               
 MR. CURTIS replied it was an obvious intent to skew the definitions           
 of these key terms to include urban residents.                                
                                                                               
 Number 0156                                                                   
                                                                               
 JOHN ERLICH, Deputy Director, Kotzebue IRA Council, was the next              
 person to testify via teleconference in Kotzebue.  The council                
 opposed HJR 21 and all the amendments to ANILCA.  There was not a             
 message yet that could be sent to Congress and HJR 21 was certainly           
 not a credible message.                                                       
                                                                               
 Number 0182                                                                   
                                                                               
 SAM JACKSON, Executive Director, Akiak IRA Council, was the next              
 person to testify via off-net in Akiak.  The council was a                    
 federally recognized tribe sitting on Indian country.  He spoke               
 today in opposition to HJR 21.  He explained a few of the young men           
 from Akiak were cited for fishing without a sport license for trout           
 with a rod and reel - a fish commonly caught for subsistence.  They           
 were told by the fish and game officers that they needed to use a             
 piece of string and a hook to fish subsistently.  There was not a             
 problem with ANILCA or subsistence in his home town.  He asked that           
 a copy of HJR 3 be faxed to him so that he could comment on it                
 later.                                                                        
                                                                               
 Number 0314                                                                   
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE IVAN IVAN thanked Mr. Jackson for his comments                 
 today.                                                                        
                                                                               
 Number 0329                                                                   
                                                                               
 CHAIR JAMES explained she agreed that in his area rural did not               
 mean anything.  She asked Mr. Jackson if he could understand that             
 in other areas of the state rural was not a good definition?                  
                                                                               
 MR. JACKSON replied, "Yes."  The term "local", however, was not a             
 good definition either.                                                       
                                                                               
 CHAIR JAMES replied she understood it also did not meet the needs.            
                                                                               
 Number 0355                                                                   
                                                                               
 CARL JACK, Subsistence Director, Rural Alaska Community Action                
 Program (RURALCAP), was the next person to testify via                        
 teleconference in Anchorage.  The resolution was really designed to           
 repeal Title VIII of ANILCA.  The resolution was driving a wedge              
 between Natives and non-Natives; urban and rural; and did not                 
 provide a consensus platform to resolve the dual management issue.            
 The congressional delegation had repeatedly stated that they would            
 not introduce any legislation to amend ANILCA unless there was                
 consensus interest in Alaska.  Senator Stevens in his annual                  
 address to the legislature said that he did not agree with the                
 resolution; it would not pass the U.S. Senate and that a solution             
 layed with an amendment to the Constitution of the State of Alaska.           
 He announced he would forward a legal analysis of HJR 21 to the               
 committee members; there was not enough time today.  In addition,             
 the effect of the resolution, if adopted, would be to drive a wedge           
 between Natives and non-Natives; urban and rural; and the views               
 promoted by the Alaska Outdoor Council and rural Alaskans.  He                
 recommended to the committee members to table the resolution.  "Do            
 not pass it out of the committee," he declared.  Let's work towards           
 a real solution that everyone could agree with and support.                   
                                                                               
 Number 0483                                                                   
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE DYSON asked Mr. Jack how the legislature could                 
 extend a hand to rural Alaska to get people to the table to form a            
 consensus agreement?                                                          
                                                                               
 Number 0499                                                                   
                                                                               
 MR. JACK replied - personally - he would look at the resolution of            
 the Lt. Governor and amend the provision dealing with the boards.             
 In addition, he suggested an interim committee that would travel to           
 rural Alaska to discuss the issue.  He believed there was room for            
 compromise on both sides.                                                     
                                                                               
 Number 0565                                                                   
                                                                               
 PATRICK CLEVELAND, Tribal Administrator, Eek Traditional Council,             
 was the next person to testify via off-net in Eek.  The council               
 opposed HJR 21 because the track record was not good in regards to            
 the rural areas.  He cited the closure of subsistence use of fish             
 in the Yukon River and the closure of Area M fisheries as examples.           
 The resolution was just another tool to fight tribes in Alaska and            
 a way to eliminate a very small amount of income for those who                
 already lived in a third world condition.  It would make life that            
 much harder.  He asked that a copy of HJR 3 be faxed to him.                  
                                                                               
 Number 0662                                                                   
                                                                               
 CARL ROSSIER, Representative, The Territorial Sportsmen, was the              
 first person to testify in Juneau.  The sportsmen dated back to               
 1945 and had been very active in fish and wildlife issues in the              
 state as well as statehood and the constitution.  The sportsmen               
 believed that there was no solution in amending the Constitution of           
 the State of Alaska.  "We just feel to change our constitution in             
 the face of what's currently in place within ANILCA is a road to              
 disaster for us."  It would provide a future of pitting one Alaskan           
 against another.  For that reason, the sportsmen supported HJR 21.            
 It was not a perfect document but it was a step.  There was not a             
 "silver bullet" that would solve the issue.  A solution was going             
 to require a multi-faceted approach, such as, court disputes and              
 lawyers.  The feds were here already and the state would see                  
 further involvement come October 1, 1997 with the take over of the            
 commercial fishing industry.  At that point, a lot of people would            
 suddenly come awake just like what happened in Ketchikan when it              
 found that the federal subsistence board was closing the residents            
 from deer hunting on the Prince of Wales Island.  There were                  
 examples like this all over the state and we could not continue to            
 support this.  We had to take the initial step and he considered              
 the resolution as an initial step.  "We've got to get off of the              
 fence and get off of the dead center that we've been on for too               
 long here on this issue."  Consensus, he explained, would probably            
 be 51 percent.                                                                
                                                                               
 MR. ROSSIER further noted that Sydney Huntington (ph) also                    
 supported HJR 21.  He was hurt and in the hospital so was unable to           
 get his comments to the committee members.                                    
                                                                               
 Number 0858                                                                   
                                                                               
 CHAIR JAMES asked Mr. Rossier if he would say that subsistence was            
 a valid use of resources in some cases?                                       
                                                                               
 MR. ROSSIER replied, "Absolutely."  The sportsmen had never, as a             
 group, opposed subsistence.  The boards had been doing a pretty               
 good job over the last 30 years of balancing the needs of the                 
 various user groups.  Subsistence had always been the priority,               
 although it was not always evident in the minds of those who raised           
 the issues.                                                                   
                                                                               
 Number 0914                                                                   
                                                                               
 CHAIR JAMES asked Mr. Rossier if he had any specific suggestions              
 that should be included in HJR 21?                                            
                                                                               
 Number 0922                                                                   
                                                                               
 MR. ROSSIER replied the sportsmen would like to see the whole                 
 "tamale" go, so to speak, in terms of what the resolution covered.            
 The resolution stated that state and private lands were the                   
 responsibility of the state and they should not be included in the            
 federal takeover of fish and wildlife management.                             
                                                                               
 Number 0965                                                                   
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY commented that he had a problem with the                 
 resolution because it admitted that the state accepted some of the            
 current court rulings.  He did not accept the Department of                   
 Interior's definition of "public lands".  He asked Mr. Rossier to             
 comment on the resolution amending the definition of "public lands"           
 to exclude state and private land and water?                                  
                                                                               
 Number 0999                                                                   
                                                                               
 MR. ROSSIER replied he tended to agree with Representative Vezey.             
 It would ultimately be resolved through the courts.                           
                                                                               
 Number 1010                                                                   
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY stated, if there was a legislative solution,             
 the courts were suppose to follow the law.  He did not have a                 
 problem with removing any possibility of state and private lands              
 being considered public lands.  He wondered, however, if by passing           
 a resolution that said amend, it would be an admission of accepting           
 the definition.  He would like to see the wording clarified.                  
                                                                               
 Number 1039                                                                   
                                                                               
 MR. ROSSIER replied he would not have a problem with what                     
 Representative Vezey was suggesting.  Who knew how the courts would           
 ultimately decide on the issue.                                               
                                                                               
 Number 1053                                                                   
                                                                               
 CHAIR JAMES stated that if legislation was not written specifically           
 enough the courts would interpret it in a way that was not                    
 intended.  A court decision was not final; it could always be fixed           
 by new legislation.  The intent of ANILCA was good, but the                   
 language was lousy.  It did not explain what subsistence uses in              
 Alaska meant and the court decisions were even worse.  The                    
 definition of "rural" did not fit Alaska's definition nor did it              
 identify where subsistence uses was needed.  She agreed with                  
 Representative Vezey; she did not want to admit to any of the court           
 decisions or assumptions.  She asked Mr. Rossier if he would be               
 willing to work on changing the language?                                     
                                                                               
 MR. ROSSIER replied he would be glad to help.                                 
                                                                               
 Number 1175                                                                   
                                                                               
 DONALD WESTLUND was the next person to testify via teleconference             
 in Ketchikan.  He had been a resident of Ketchikan for over 20                
 years.  The state would relinquish all of its authority over to               
 federal directives, not some as the sponsor statement read.  It               
 would be the federal courts that would decide the laws.  In                   
 addition, the take over would not just affect commercial fishing              
 but all fisheries.  He did not agree with HJR 3 but liked some of             
 the wording such as "direct dependence".  He liked the wording                
 "regional dependency" even better.  He agreed that ANILCA neither             
 affirmed nor denied the existence of tribal sovereignty and Indian            
 country in Alaska.  He announced his support of HJR 21; it was the            
 way to go.  We needed to send a strong message to our congressional           
 delegation in Washington D.C.  "They need to know that they are not           
 running the state, that they are representing the state."  And any            
 change to the Constitution of the State of Alaska would not change            
 what ANILCA could do to Alaska.  He suggested sending a copy of               
 ANILCA to the other states that had federal lands because it would            
 go to them after Alaska.                                                      
                                                                               
 Number 1348                                                                   
                                                                               
 DICK COOSE was the next person to testify via teleconference in               
 Ketchikan.  He declared his support of HJR 21.  Overall, if ANILCA            
 was not changed, the state would not have any control over its fish           
 and game.  We could change the constitution, but ANILCA would still           
 control it.  In addition, ANILCA was also controlling other                   
 resources within the state.  He cited recently at a subsistence               
 advisory meeting an environmentalist was explaining that any                  
 support of timber sales would cut down on the number of deer in               
 Southeast.  He suggested to first fix ANILCA then amend the                   
 constitution, but only if Title VIII went away so that we could               
 move forward and control our own state in regards to subsistence              
 uses.  In addition, if we did not take back control of Alaska for             
 Alaskans the federal government would turn us into a national park.           
 It was coming so we needed the voice of the legislators; the                  
 Governor and the federal government were not representing us right            
 now.  "You folks are our hope so hang tough and go with HJR 21 and            
 give the folks a chance to vote on a constitutional amendment.  If            
 it's a good one we may pass it.  If it's a bad one, it isn't going            
 to go anywhere."  Consensus would be about 80 percent, not 51                 
 percent as mentioned earlier.                                                 
                                                                               
 CHAIR JAMES asked Mr. Coose if he was in support of HJR 21, for               
 clarification?                                                                
                                                                               
 MR. COOSE replied, "Yes I am."                                                
                                                                               
 Number 1531                                                                   
                                                                               
 RANDY SHUMATE was the next person to testify via teleconference in            
 Kenai.  He was representing himself and was president of the Kenai            
 Peninsula Safari Club.  What about the resources involved in this             
 issue?  The misinterpretations of ANILCA were defeating its own               
 purpose and intent.  There were documented cases of reverse                   
 discrimination.  In his opinion the intent of ANILCA was good, but            
 the language had mutated to the point that it was self-serving to             
 a minor percentage of the population.  The provision in HJR 21 were           
 a step in the right direction.  He reiterated he did not oppose the           
 intent of ANILCA; he opposed its interpretation and implementation.           
                                                                               
 Number 1668                                                                   
                                                                               
 GARY HULL, was the next person to testify via teleconference in               
 Kenai.  He was a fish and game guide and a subsistence user.  He              
 thanked Representatives Ogan and Masek for bringing the issue to              
 the floor.  Subsistence was the most important issue facing Alaska            
 today.  It was a black hole.  We, as Alaskans, needed to demand               
 that ANILCA be amended to come in line with the Constitution of the           
 State of Alaska.  "We don't need to amend our constitution to come            
 in line with ANILCA." he declared.  Alaska needed to take back                
 control of its fish and game resources.  The federal government had           
 no place running our resources.  He asked the committee members to            
 act on the resolution now.  He totally supported HJR 21.                      
                                                                               
 Number 1752                                                                   
                                                                               
 APRIL FERGUSON was the next person to testify via teleconference in           
 Nome.  She was opposed to the resolution.  The legislature must               
 eventually address the subsistence issue, but the resolution was              
 not an effective or honest way to begin the conversation.  The                
 resolution asked that the Native community give up its established            
 subsistence protection and place the future of their children and             
 heritage in the hands of the state when the climate was overtly               
 anti-Native.  It would be suicidal and foolish.  The resolution was           
 an ingenious delay tactic and she encouraged the legislators to               
 continue to invest their time, resources, and tax dollars in                  
 pursing HJR 21 instead of searching for a solution.  She also                 
 applauded the delay of any genuine conversation until October when            
 the questions would be resolved for all of us.                                
                                                                               
 Number 1842                                                                   
                                                                               
 FRITZ WILLIE was the next person to testify via off-net in                    
 Napakiak.  He announced he opposed HJR 21.  Comments needed to be             
 heard from both sides.  He suggested to the committee members not             
 to consider it.                                                               
                                                                               
 Number 1908                                                                   
                                                                               
 ROD ARNO, President, Alaska Outdoor Council (AOC), was the next               
 person to testify via teleconference in Mat-Su.  He was a 25 year             
 resident of Palmer.  The AOC delegates and board of directors                 
 supported HJR 21 for two reasons.  The first was their concern for            
 sound conservation of the natural resources in Alaska.  The second            
 was their concern for fair allocation of the common use of the                
 natural resources found on federal public lands.  He reiterated the           
 testimony of Dick Bishop, Executive Director, Alaska Outdoor                  
 Council.  The AOC extended its support for a subsistence compromise           
 within the state by testifying in favor of HJR 21.  The resolution            
 recognized a preference of subsistence under ANILCA creating                  
 divisiveness.  The resolution was a first step by placing an                  
 unconstitutional act - ANILCA - back into the hands of the                    
 congressional delegation.  The statistics indicated at 41 percent             
 that Alaskans believed that the federal subsistence laws should be            
 repealed while only 32 percent did not know or did not have an                
 opinion.  A larger mandate, he recognized, than what elected the              
 current Administration.  The 32 percent was a clear indicator of              
 the complication of the subsistence issue.  This was why an open              
 dialogue was needed.  Therefore, he commended Representatives Ogan            
 and Masek for opening the concern up to the public through the                
 resolution.  In addition, the courts recognized that their holding            
 were unsatisfactory and the solution would be in legislative                  
 action.                                                                       
                                                                               
 Number 2293                                                                   
                                                                               
 WALTER JOHNSON, Sr. was the next person to testify via                        
 teleconference in Yakutat.  He was opposed to HJR 21.  He was from            
 a small community and depended on the resources.  He found the                
 resolution one of the most discriminatory actions taken against all           
 the citizens of Alaska.  Subsistence was for rural Alaskan                    
 residents of any color or creed.  He did not know why big cities              
 were against subsistence because it kept us from moving to the                
 cities and off of welfare.  In addition, it stated very clearly in            
 the Constitution of the United States that the federal government             
 had power over the states.  He agreed with Ms. Ferguson's testimony           
 from Nome.                                                                    
                                                                               
 TAPE 97-44, SIDE A                                                            
 Number 0030                                                                   
                                                                               
 CHAIR JAMES asked Mr. Johnson if he could understand that the                 
 concept of "rural" became blurred closer to the urban areas?  She             
 cited Ketchikan was not considered rural, but Saxman was considered           
 rural when it was only a few miles away and had the same benefits             
 as Ketchikan.  Plus, Ketchikan was having trouble because of the              
 closing of the pulp mill.                                                     
                                                                               
 MR. JOHNSON, Sr. replied he could understand.  He had lived in                
 Ketchikan, Nome, Bristol Bay, Sitka, Anchorage and the Aleutian               
 Chain.  And during all those years he lived a subsistence                     
 lifestyle.  The citizens of Ketchikan had the ability to move to              
 rural Alaska if a subsistence lifestyle was what they wanted.  The            
 blur was the result of the AOC, for example, that wanted its fair             
 share.  "They have their fair share.  They just want more." he                
 declared.  He reiterated we did not want to be forced to go to the            
 city and to go on welfare.  "We have our pride and would like to              
 stay in the villages."                                                        
                                                                               
 Number 0247                                                                   
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE IVAN explained that he represented the lower                   
 Kuskokwim and Bristol Bay area.  Historically the community of                
 Akiak was the first area to be settled followed by Bethel.  Akiak             
 had a hospital, mining and government and at one time Akiak was               
 divided by a reservation.  The Native side was on the reservation             
 while the other side was open to all.  It was a matter of pride               
 being born into the Native side of the community.  The children               
 were taught pride, the art of hunting and fishing, and the                    
 preservation of the resources.  Alaska was such a large state that            
 it was comparable to another country.  Consequently, there was a              
 diversity of lifestyles.  The people that he represented were full            
 of pride because of their lifestyle and this ability had been                 
 recognized by the federal government prior to statehood.  Thus, the           
 communities would rather work with the federal government.  The               
 debate today was a product of statehood.  "I'm sure you understand            
 that some of the comments made by testifiers from rural parts of              
 the state would like to hang to their way of life in the villages             
 to take care of themselves."                                                  
                                                                               
 Number 0519                                                                   
                                                                               
 CHAIR JAMES asked Representative Ivan if the definition in ANILCA             
 of "subsistence preference" was the same preference that Natives              
 had at the time?                                                              
                                                                               
 Number 0562                                                                   
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE IVAN replied ANILCA protected and guaranteed the               
 rights and abilities that we had in place.  His constituents were             
 afraid of opening ANILCA because they feared the end result.                  
                                                                               
 Number 0607                                                                   
                                                                               
 CHAIR JAMES asked Representative Ivan if he believed that the                 
 supporters of amending ANILCA did not support subsistence uses as             
 it had been done over the years?                                              
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE IVAN replied it depended on the area that you came             
 from.  The problem of equal access to common property was in the              
 areas like Ketchikan and other built up communities.                          
                                                                               
 Number 0677                                                                   
                                                                               
 CHAIR JAMES commented the biggest problem was not the historical              
 and customary uses or the infringement on existing subsistence                
 uses, but the addition of more people participating in subsistence            
 by their zip code.  It was not from the existing long-term people.            
 She cited two gentlemen who worked for the Bureau of Land                     
 Management (BLM) made the comment how wonderful it was to be in               
 Alaska where they could subsistence hunt.  They came to Alaska on             
 a temporary basis and earned a substantial salary.  She asked                 
 Representative Ivan if they should be able to participate in a                
 subsistence lifestyle because of where they were living?                      
                                                                               
 Number 0748                                                                   
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE IVAN replied it depended on where they were at.  In            
 his community a lot of the non-Natives married into the Native                
 community and became community members.  They had equal access to             
 the resources as the Natives and were in fact encouraged to take              
 care of themselves.  There was no discrimination.                             
                                                                               
 Number 0802                                                                   
                                                                               
 CHAIR JAMES asked Representative Ivan, if the people that she                 
 referenced earlier had a salary of up to $60,000, should they still           
 have subsistence use of the resources?                                        
                                                                               
 Number 0854                                                                   
 REPRESENTATIVE IVAN replied it was a matter of lifestyle.                     
                                                                               
 Number 0866                                                                   
                                                                               
 CHAIR JAMES said there was not a single solitary person in the                
 state who would take that right away.  There was support for the              
 lifestyle.  The issue was convoluted across the state, however.               
                                                                               
 Number 0888                                                                   
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY commented that the federal employee she                  
 referred to were probably engaged in consumptive use guaranteed               
 under the sport hunting regulations.  He could not see how they               
 would qualify under the subsistence regulations.  If they had been            
 here more than one year, they could take advantage of the rural               
 preference, however.                                                          
                                                                               
 Number 0922                                                                   
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE ELTON commented the challenges that she referred to            
 would remain irregardless if there was resolution to ANILCA or the            
 constitution.                                                                 
                                                                               
 Number 1002                                                                   
                                                                               
 EILEEN NORBERT was the next person to testify via teleconference in           
 Nome.  She was opposed to HJR 21.  According to the division of               
 subsistence, the annual harvest of wild resources was 375 pounds              
 per person in rural areas compared to 22 pounds per person in urban           
 areas.  It seemed that we were always in a position to fight for              
 the very food that we put on our tables for dinner.  "It shouldn't            
 be that way."  In addition, one year ago the board of fisheries               
 found that the False Pass fishery was more important economically             
 to the state than our subsistence fishery.  That was an example of            
 how we were disadvantaged and how the state system hurt us.                   
 Another example was the closing of the river near Nome to                     
 subsistence fishing.  It forced fishing on the ocean which required           
 a bigger boat, for example, causing economic hardship.  She urged             
 the legislature not to adopt the resolution.                                  
                                                                               
 Number 1204                                                                   
                                                                               
 CHAIR JAMES stated that nobody wanted to take subsistence rights              
 away.                                                                         
                                                                               
 Number 1226                                                                   
                                                                               
 MS. NORBERT replied she disagreed.  Gutting ANILCA, as HJR 21                 
 proposed, took away our ability to hunt and fish subsistently.                
                                                                               
 Number 1250                                                                   
                                                                               
 LORETTA BULLARD, President, Kawerak Inc., was the next person to              
 testify via teleconference in Nome.  She was opposed to HJR 21.               
 The majority of Alaskans favored placing a constitutional amendment           
 on the ballot to put the issue to rest.  "This issue has divided              
 Alaska long enough."  It was irresponsible that the issue had not             
 been addressed before this time.  Rural Alaskans were fed up with             
 having to continually deal with the issue and not seeing any                  
 movement by the legislature.                                                  
                                                                               
 Number 1314                                                                   
                                                                               
 RUSSELL NELSON, Natural Resources/Environmental Protection Manger,            
 Bristol Bay Native Association (BBNA), was the next person to                 
 testify via teleconference in Dillingham.  He read the following              
 from a letter of statement into the record:                                   
                                                                               
 "The Bristol Bay Native Association is a tribal organization                  
 serving 31 Alaska Native communities, each of which is heavily                
 dependent upon subsistence use of Fish and Game.                              
                                                                               
 "The laws of the State of Alaska provide no meaningful priority or            
 protection for subsistence use of Fish and Game because they equate           
 recreational.                                                                 
                                                                               
 "If the current policies and laws of the State of Alaska regarding            
 subsistence use of Fish and Game are extended to apply statewide,             
 then Alaska Native culture, traditions, and indeed village life               
 itself will eventually be destroyed because of continuing urban               
 population growth and resultant pressure on Fish and Game                     
 resources.                                                                    
                                                                               
 "Cutbacks on government spending on welfare and other services in             
 rural Alaska are making subsistence even more essential.                      
                                                                               
 "The only meaningful legal protection for subsistence and the                 
 continued vitality of Native subsistence-based culture is Title               
 VIII of the Alaska Native Interest Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA).           
                                                                               
 "House Joint resolution 21 has been introduced in the Alaska State            
 Legislature and asks Congress to amend Title VIII of ANILCA in a              
 manner which will effectively destroy the protection it gives to              
 subsistence.                                                                  
                                                                               
 "Some of the changes requested by HJR 21 would have no practical              
 effect as they reflect a fundamental misunderstanding of the law,             
 for example:                                                                  
                                                                               
  - State and private land are already excluded from the                       
        definition of public land in ANILCA                                    
                                                                               
  - ANILCA already neither confirms nor denies the existence of                
        tribal sovereignty and Indian Country in Alaska                        
 "HJR 21 contains many other inaccuracies of law and fact.                     
                                                                               
 "HJR 21 is cleverly worded to distort the truth and appears                   
 intended to work a subterfuge upon the people of Alaska.                      
                                                                               
 "Among the falsehoods in HJR are:                                             
                                                                               
  - its title implied is it asking for a mere amendment to Title               
        VIII whereas it actually would gut the protections for                 
        subsistence uses in Title VIII.                                        
                                                                               
  - the views expressed in HJR 21 are not a `plurality' of                     
        opinion in Alaska, but a minority, polls have continually              
        shown a majority preference for a constitutional amendment             
        to restore a rural subsistence priority to state law.                  
                                                                               
  - Title VIII of ANILCA does not `unnecessarily' encroach upon                
        state authority but is a reasonable and necessary exercise             
        of Congressional authority to meet the trust obligations of            
        the United State government toward Native Americans.                   
                                                                               
  - Title VIII of ANILCA does not contradict the 10th Amendment                
        to the U.S. Constitution; both state and federal courts have           
        consistently upheld the constitutionality of Title VIII                
        against 10th Amendment and other constitutional challenges.            
                                                                               
 "The Board of Directors of the Bristol Bay Native Association, on             
 behalf of itself and the following Alaskan Native communities:                
                                                                               
  Aleknagik, Chignik Bay, Chignik Lagoon, Chignik Lake, Clarks                 
      Point, Dillingham, Egegik, Ekuk, Ekwok, Igiugig, Iliamma,                
      Ivanof Bay, Kanatak, King Salmon, Kokhanok, Koliganek,                   
      Levelock, Manakotak, Naknek, New Stuyahok, Newhalen,                     
      Nondalton, Pedro Bay, Perryville, Pilot Point, Port Heiden,              
     Portage Creek, South Naknek, Togiak, Twin Hills, and Ugashik              
     ardently oppose HJR 21 and urge its defeat in the Alaska State            
      Legislature and its rejection by Congress."                              
                                                                               
 Number 1510                                                                   
                                                                               
 JOHN PECKHAM was the next person to testify via teleconference in             
 Ketchikan.  He was a commercial fisherman and supported making                
 changes to ANILCA similar to the ones in HJR 21 because the recent            
 court and federal interpretations were liberal.  He saw stock                 
 management as opposed to sustained yield management.  He supported            
 changes to ANILCA because the regulatory body was not accountable             
 to the legislature or the Governor and, therefore, not the people.            
 He was not opposed to a change in the constitution or state laws if           
 it would help keep the federal government from managing the state's           
 fisheries.  For example, changing the law so that subsistence was             
 based on need and a remote location.  He liked HJR 3 as well, but             
 changes to ANILCA were necessary to keep the state's authority over           
 the management of its fish and wildlife.                                      
                                                                               
 Number 1587                                                                   
                                                                               
 CHAIR JAMES thanked Mr. Peckham for his testimony.  He was the                
 first today to indicate that changing the constitution alone would            
 not solve the problem.  It was important to get the feds out of the           
 state as well.                                                                
                                                                               
 Number 1606                                                                   
                                                                               
 KAY ANDREW was the next person to testify via teleconference in               
 Ketchikan.  She was a lifelong Alaskan and in total support of HJR
 21.  The federal takeover in October meant the possibility of no              
 place to hunt or fish abusing our civil and state rights.  Congress           
 developed ANILCA knowing it was outside the Constitution of the               
 State of Alaska.  "It is my belief Congress knew we could not come            
 in compliance with ANILCA."  The federal government could still               
 come and manage our resources if someone did not like the way the             
 state was managing them if ANILCA was not amended.  Therefore, the            
 only solution was to fix ANILCA.  In addition, the Babbitt case,              
 dropped by the Governor, could have given us the avenue to deal               
 with the issue.  We the urban people should ask the Governor why he           
 dropped the case.  She encouraged the passage of HJR 21 to show the           
 congressional delegation we were trying to do something.  Senator             
 Stevens needed to be reminded who elected him to office because the           
 congressional delegation could do something contrary to his                   
 testimony before the legislature.  It was their problem and they              
 needed to be pressured to do something.  The legislature right now            
 was the only body protecting all of Alaskans rights.  Ketchikan was           
 concerned because of its status of urban when Saxman was considered           
 rural.  She did not consider Sitka rural either.  There was no                
 consistency.  The people who lived in urban areas provided the                
 ability for the rural communities to exist by paying income taxes             
 to the federal government.  What would happen if the urban people             
 decided to not pay this money anymore?                                        
                                                                               
 Number 1778                                                                   
                                                                               
 DICK BISHOP, Executive Director, Alaska Outdoor Council, was the              
 next person to testify in Juneau.  The testimony indicated there              
 was a high level of confusion and misunderstanding.  Some argued it           
 was a race issue; other argued it was a trust relationship between            
 the state and federal governments.  Mr. Russel from Dillingham                
 indicated it was a matter of economy as well which was true for               
 some areas of the state.  The Bristol Bay district, however, had              
 consistently had a per capita income that far exceeded the national           
 average and had at times been the highest per capita for income in            
 the United States collectively.  It was currently 145 percent of              
 the average national income in the United States.  There needed to            
 be a fair way to extend the benefits of subsistence to all who                
 qualified.  The rights were not distributed in a cookie cutter                
 fashion.  The regulations indicated that was not how it operated;             
 there were allocation decisions made between the different kinds of           
 uses.  The equal protection of the common use of the resources                
 should dictate that each Alaskan should have equal opportunity to             
 qualify for the benefits under a subsistence priority.  Therefore,            
 the same opportunities should be the same as a resident of                    
 Fairbanks who lived subsistently.  The extent that he relied on               
 natural resources for a livelihood, despite his cash income, was              
 higher than many who lived in rural places.  The reason the supreme           
 court ruled out the federal law was because it was both under and             
 over-inclusive.  There were people in rural Alaska that it did not            
 fit, and there were people in urban Alaska that it did fit but were           
 precluded.  The solution was to base the importance of the                    
 resources to the lifestyle and well being of a person; it did not             
 have to depend on racial background or where a person lived.  The             
 federal law was arbitrary in terms of fair treatment and sound                
 conservation.                                                                 
                                                                               
 Number 2066                                                                   
                                                                               
 CHAIR JAMES announced the bill would be held over until a later               
 date yet to be determined.                                                    
                                                                               

Document Name Date/Time Subjects