Legislature(1997 - 1998)
07/20/1998 04:12 PM Senate RES
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
SB 2001 - RURAL SUBSISTENCE PRIORITY LAW SUIT
SJR 201 - CONSTITUTIONAL AMDT RE SUBSISTENCE
CHAIRMAN HALFORD called the Senate Resources Committee meeting to
order at 4:12 p.m. He stated SB 2001 and SJR 201 were before the
committee for consideration.
COMMISSIONER FRANK RUE, Department of Fish and Game, said
management of the state's resources by the state is a critical
issue to all Alaskans, and the Administration believes it is
necessary to put the issue before the voters and give them an
opportunity to vote on it.
Commissioner Rue said the Administration believes a constitutional
amendment is needed to allow state management of subsistence
fishing and hunting on all lands. Of concern is the suggestion
that federal management would be better than passing an amendment
to the constitution. A state management system with some federal
oversight is far different than federal management.
Commissioner Rue said a critical point is that federal management
of subsistence would be just for subsistence; it would not look at
other users or other uses. He pointed out that the Yukon River is
a perfect example of where commercial and subsistence uses are
intricately intertwined, where peoples' ability to participate in
a subsistence economy depends on them catching fish commercially.
To have the federal government managing solely for subsistence and
the state trying to manage for other sport and commercial uses
would not work and would a detriment to the subsistence users as
well as the other users of the resource.
Commissioner Rue said he believes federal management will be
intrusive, and it will affect other user groups: sport, commercial
and state subsistence users. He also believes the conservation
burden will be left primarily to the state.
Commissioner Rue said if a constitutional amendment is put before
the voters, passes and a statute is developed, the federal
bureaucracy will be dismantled and the state will once again be
managing subsistence, both sport and commercial, on lands in
Alaska. The Administration believes that this is the proper
course, and that the Department of Fish and Game can do a good job
of managing the state's resources. The constitutional amendment
allows for the flexibility the boards will need to ensure both a
subsistence priority as well as the other important uses of the
state's fish and game resources.
Number 126
STEVE WHITE, Assistance Attorney General, Department of Law, said
the legislation before the committee was somewhat different from
the constitutional amendment which was presented before the First
Special Session. It adds in a new section, Section 19, which
provides that the Legislature shall, consistent with the sustained
yield principle, provide a priority for subsistence uses of fish
or wildlife resource by residents of a community or area that is
substantially dependent on fish and wildlife for nutritional and
other subsistence uses. He explained the words "substantially
dependent" is a definition of a community or an area. It is sort
of a collective concept; it is not an individual determination
based on a residence. The section further provides the priority
may be based upon place of residence. This was added to allow for
the Tier II provisions, which has been a feature of the state's
subsistence law for quite a while. Tier II basically provides that
when a resource gets down to a lower level of abundance, the people
who are closest to the resource have priority.
Number 162
CHAIRMAN HALFORD said the differences in this constitutional
amendment is that instead of saying the Legislature "may" provide
a priority, it says the Legislature "shall" provide a priority,
that the priority may be based on place of residence, and that the
dependent criteria are the community or area. He concluded that a
wealthy person within a dependent area would have a priority over
a poor person in a nondependent area. MR. WHITE agreed that was
correct.
Addressing Section 29, MR. WHITE said it establishes the effective
date of the amendment, and it provides that if the constitutional
amendment is adopted by the voters of the state, it will take
effect on October 1, 2000. He said it was a compromise proposal
put in to allow the Legislative Council's lawsuit to proceed
through the court system to get a resolution of the issues raised
in the lawsuit. All avenues of appeal, regardless of how those
issues work their way through federal courts, should be resolved in
two years.
CHAIRMAN HALFORD asked if it was his testimony that he believes
that the court cases will probably be concluded by October 1, 2000.
MR. WHITE responded that it is difficult to make a very strong
prediction based upon many things that could happen in the lawsuit,
but the prediction is based upon the average amount of time it has
taken an appeal to work through the District Court of Appeals and
based upon the amount of time their Venetie action took before the
U.S. Supreme Court. He added that it is likely that it will be
resolved within the 26-month period.
Number 210
SENATOR LINCOLN asked who the October 1, 2000 date was a compromise
with. MR. WHITE replied it was with the parties who were resistant
to having a constitutional amendment before the voters. They
wanted the other avenue of resolving this question, the
Legislative Council lawsuit, to have an opportunity to work itself
out, and this was a compromise to let that happen before the
constitutional amendment became effective. This was developed
during the First Special Session, and the parties at the table
discussed various ways of getting the constitutional amendment
before the voters.
SENATOR LINCOLN asked Mr. White if he was suggesting that those
parties are accepting this compromise. MR. WHITE answered he
wasn't sure where they stood right now, but during the First
Special Session those parties wanted this type of concession.
CHAIRMAN HALFORD asked if the Secretary of the Interior has agreed
to this two-year delayed effective date. MR. WHITE replied that in
a letter received that day, Secretary Babbitt agreed to postponing
the implementation of federal subsistence regulations for two years
if the Legislature allows the amendment to go on the ballot.
Number 245
SENATOR TORGERSON asked Mr. White if Secretary Babbitt believes
that the lawsuit will be settled by October 2000, and, if so, why
not just leave the date out and go back to what was passed
originally. MR. WHITE replied that it was not discussed in the
Secretary's letter. It is their prediction that it will likely
happen, but it is not a certain. In any event, the state doesn't
have any control over the progress of that lawsuit.
SENATOR SHARP said he thought that during the First Special Session
the other body proposed a 2004 effective date as a compromise, and
he asked who objected to that date. MR. WHITE replied that he was
only aware of a 2002 date, but he wasn't sure how the current date
evolved because he wasn't involved in the actual discussions of
compromise.
CHAIRMAN HALFORD referenced page 2, line 6 of SJR 201, which
provides that this constitutional amendment would be repealed if
the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA) is
found to be unconstitutional, but it is ANILCA as amended, and he
asked if that included amendments made prior to this time or would
that include amendments made after this date. MR. WHITE replied
that he didn't think people anticipate ANILCA being amended in the
future, and he thinks an interpretation would be as it is formed
right now.
CHAIRMAN HALFORD suggested clarifying that in the language, and MR.
WHITE thought it could be done.
Number 300
SENATOR TAYLOR said he was unaware of anybody who has agreed to the
offer that the Governor has made who was not already there before
and advocating for either that or stronger language, and he asked
Mr. White to clarify who are the parties are with whom they have
entered into a compromise. MR. WHITE responded that maybe
compromise, in a legal sense, is not the correct term. He said
this resulted from a lot of discussions and negotiations at the end
of the First Special Session, and this is as far as they got when
everybody went home. Not everybody sat down at the table at one
point, but it included representatives of the sport fishing
community, Alaskans Together, the commercial fishing industry, some
members of the Legislature and the Administration.
COMMISSIONER RUE added that it is a proposal put on the table to
allow for the Legislative Council lawsuit to go forward to give
that opportunity that also reacts to the federal government's
willingness or unwillingness to delay implementation of a court
order they've got to implement ANILCA.
SENATOR TAYLOR asked what happens if any federal district court
judge at any time in the future finds that the state of Alaska is
out of compliance with ANILCA. COMMISSIONER RUE responded that if
the state were totally out of compliance, we would be exactly where
we are today, which is dual management. One of the important
things that has been discussed is the definitions of ANILCA that
Senator Stevens got that are parallel to the definitions in state
law. He stressed having parallel definitions in state and federal
law is critical.
SENATOR TAYLOR asked if it wasn't true that if the state were found
to be out of compliance, at that point in time is not the Secretary
of the Interior fully authorized to take over that management on
all federal lands and waters under ANILCA just as is threatened
today. COMMISSIONER RUE replied that if the state is out of
compliance, the federal government can continue to manage on
federal lands. SENATOR TAYLOR commented that he didn't think the
statement was accurate that through this Act the state is going to
regain and retain complete management of fish and wildlife on all
land and water in Alaska by doing this Act.
Number 402
SENATOR TAYLOR said Alaskans have been told for almost a year that
the feds would take over management on December 1, 1998, and he
asked who talked to Secretary Babbitt and got that date changed to
December 1, 2000. COMMISSIONER RUE answered that he believes it
was the congressional delegation speaking, as well as the Governor.
SENATOR GREEN asked for a review on what the Stevens' amendments to
ANILCA include. COMMISSIONER RUE responded they are primarily
definitions, definitions of rural, customary trade, reasonable
opportunity, etc. It is also now written in ANILCA that the Board
of Fisheries and the Board of Game are given the same deference as
a federal agency in their decisions.
Number 503
There was brief discussion between Senator Taylor and Mr. White on
the dismissal of the Babbitt case.
Number 575
SENATOR WILKEN asked if his understanding was correct that a rural
priority would be in effect in times of shortage, and if that is
correct, who would determine when the time of shortage is in
effect. COMMISSIONER RUE answered that the rural priority would
basically be there, the board would implement it, and it would only
affect other users when there wasn't enough resource to go around
for all users.
TAPE 98-49, SIDE B
Number 569
SENATOR WILKEN questioned what prompted the change of the word
"may" to "shall" in Section 19 of the resolution. COMMISSIONER
RUE answered that the issue is the significance of subsistence to
people who are substantially dependent on the resource. He said
it's important to the Governor and many people that subsistence
"shall" be provided, and how it is done is the "may" part.
Number 562
SENATOR TORGERSON asked if anyone had information on a recent
appeal hearing by the Ninth Circuit in Anchorage relating to a
restriction on the taking of moose.
WAYNE REGELIN, Director, Division of Wildlife Conservation,
Department of Fish and Game, explained that under the current law
that the hearing was on, the standard that must be met for federal
subsistence users is to have the least adverse impact. He said one
of the significant changes in the ANILCA amendments is that they
changed that standard to a reasonable opportunity to participate in
the harvest, and with that standard, there still is the
opportunity to participate in a harvest.
SENATOR TORGERSON also asked if going to a catch and release
restriction on a particular river system would be enough to
trigger a subsistence priority. COMMISSIONER RUE responded that in
the statute that was proposed by the Governor's Task Force you
would not have to restrict catch and release to meet the
subsistence. There could still be a catch and release fishery
unless it threatened sustained yield.
Number 478
SENATOR LINCOLN asked Chairman Halford his intention on taking
testimony. CHAIRMAN HALFORD said it was his intention to take
testimony from the Administration and then from about six organized
groups.
Number 450
CHAIRMAN HALFORD asked Mr. White to present a brief overview on SB
2001.
MR. WHITE explained SB 2001 provides that the Legislative Council
may sue on behalf of the state of Alaska as a plaintiff in the
current lawsuit that it is working its way through the court
system, thereby making it clear that both branches of the state
government are allowing this suit to proceed in the name of the
state by the Legislative Council.
CHAIRMAN HALFORD asked Mr. White if it was his legal opinion that
the statute can grant to the Legislature the ability to have
standing if it doesn't already have it. MR. WHITE replied that he,
personally, had not read the case law in this area. He said he
thinks the federal government has indicated they have not conceded
that this would do it. CHAIRMAN HALFORD asked if there was
somebody in the AG's office who could give a definitive opinion as
to whether any statutory action can, in fact, grant standing if it
doesn't otherwise constitutionally exist. MR. WHITE answered that
there was an individual in his department a lot more familiar with
that issue, and he would request that person to appear before the
committee.
CHAIRMAN HALFORD noted an opinion from legislative legal advisors
states that if it is clear under the state constitution that the
Legislature does not have standing in a particular case because of
the separation of powers doctrine, a statute cannot alter the
result. He said if that is the case, this bill is a waste of money
and a waste of consideration.
Number 396
SENATOR LINCOLN said according to the cover letter on SB 2001, it
is contingent on the passage of a constitutional amendment, and
that she had prepared an amendment that would so state that in the
bill.
Number 357
SENATOR SHARP asked if the attorney general had filed a brief
stating that the Legislative Council doesn't have standing in this
case. MR. WHITE replied that the state of Alaska hasn't entered
into this particular case.
Number 307
CHAIRMAN HALFORD invited the drafter of SB 2001, Jim Baldwin, to
the table to respond to questions raised concerning the standing
issue.
JIM BALDWIN, Assistant Attorney General, Governmental Affairs
Section, Department of Law, said the bill is intended to support
the Legislature's claim to standing, and support for this approach
was gained from a 1987 Supreme Court case in which the New Jersey
State Legislature was undertaking the defense of a prayer in public
schools case, which the governor and attorney general in that state
decided not to defend. Although the court is not very precise on
what kind of statute was in effect in that case, the court relied
heavily on the fact that the Legislature had been recognized in
state law in New Jersey as having standing for certain purposes. It
was his thinking that if the U.S. Supreme Court would recognize a
state law as concurring some standing on a legislative agency, that
it might work in this case. He said the Administration was looking
for some way to support the Legislative Council in their lawsuit
and not be a detriment.
CHAIRMAN HALFORD asked what the constitution means when it says the
Legislative Council may sue on behalf of the Legislature. MR.
BALDWIN replied that he thought it was the statute that provides
that. He added that it could be argued by some that that's only to
support legislative causes of action. CHAIRMAN HALFORD asked if
there was any case law on that. MR. BALDWIN responded the state
has engaged in some litigation between the branches over the power
of the Council to sue or be sued. He clarified that there have
been cases where the Legislature has sued the governor and there
were standing arguments made in those cases. However, in the state
system, standing is not such a big issue as it is in the federal
cases, where this case is now and which they are trying to aid the
Legislature's standing. He said in the federal courts, standing is
a much more complicated and strictly enforced doctrine than in
state courts. Suits between the Legislature have been exclusively
in state courts.
CHAIRMAN HALFORD asked Mr. Baldwin if he was familiar with the
opinion by Tam Cook, Director of Legal Services, Legislative
Affairs Agency, on the question of standing. MR. BALDWIN responded
that he understands the argument, but he does not agree with it.
In the state court situation where you have the governor's powers
coming into play, the Legislature's powers coming into play, and
there being a conflict between those two, then he thinks separation
of powers does come into play because the governor is the official
charged with the power of executing the law. He added that he is
not saying that this is a statute that is going to solve once and
for all, but he thinks it is one that helps rather than hinders the
Legislature, and in that case, it is a valuable tool for the use of
the litigators who are pursuing this case on behalf of the
Legislature.
Number 199
SENATOR TAYLOR asked Mr. Baldwin why the Governor does not wish to
pursue this suit which would carry out, in essence, the third
branches' decision on this case, that it is violative of the equal
protection clause of the state's constitution. MR. BALDWIN replied
that he didn't know the answer to that question.
SENATOR TAYLOR asked if another case like this should arise in the
future, would the Legislature have to go the Governor and have him
introduce legislation similar to SB 2001. MR. BALDWIN thought that
if the Legislature wanted to sue representing the state in a
capacity other than merely the Legislature preserving some
legislative prerogative, it would need something, whether it be a
constitutional amendment or perhaps a statute. SENATOR TAYLOR
commented that the entire issue of standing and all of these
procedural things disappear if we have a governor willing to stand
up for and defend the state's constitution. He said if this case
were taken on it merits to the U.S. Supreme Court, he personally
feels very confident the law would be thrown out as an invasion of
state power.
SENATOR TAYLOR then asked if there is any assurance from the
Administration that once this legislation is passed, they still
won't do everything behind their backs to make certain that that
lawsuit is thrown out. MR. BALDWIN couldn't answer the question,
but he said he would pass Senator Taylor's concern on to someone
who can give that assurance.
TAPE 98-50, SIDE A
Number 040
CHAIRMAN HALFORD opened the hearing to public testimony.
JULIE KITKA, President, Alaska Federation of Natives, stated a lot
of people from throughout the state traveled to Juneau at great
expense, and she requested that these people, especially the
elders, be provided an opportunity to testify before the committee.
She stressed the importance of this issue to her people, and she
said she believes they deserve the courtesy to be heard, even if
it is for a short time. She also stated she thought the hearing
should have been teleconferenced to every region and every village,
and it should have been an interactive teleconference to allow
those people to participate as well.
CHAIRMAN HALFORD informed Ms. Kitka that staff was a making copies
of a list of all the hearings and all the people that had testified
at previous hearings on subsistence. He added that if there was an
extension of the hearing, the committee may go to some method of
trying to hear from people who hadn't testified before the
committee at previous hearings on this topic.
SENATOR WARD asked if the Alaska Federation of Natives was involved
along with the sports groups, Alaskans Together, and other
interested parties, in putting the compromise legislation together.
MS. KITKA stated she wanted to present AFN's position before
answering that question.
Number 230
MS. KITKA stated AFN has worked very hard over the last eight years
in trying to help the state overcome its concerns, questions, etc.,
and they remain committed to trying to help the state regain
management of fish and game and bring the state into compliance
with ANILCA.
Ms. Kitka said the AFN Board of Directors reaffirms its commitment
to the 1997 subsistence summit guiding principles. AFN continues
to support the development of the state constitutional amendment
consistent with the subsistence summit guiding principles and
ANILCA prior to the 1997 amendments. The AFN Board of Directors
reaffirms its support for federal and state legislation which
includes the opportunity for tribal co-management and protects
Native people who live in surrounding communities affected by in-
migration and population growth. The AFN Board of Directors
opposes any constitutional amendment which requires changes that
would weaken subsistence protections or diminish federal oversight
for rural and Alaska Natives.
Ms. Kitka pointed out the Native people own 44 million acres of
land in the state of Alaska, the federal government owns 60 percent
of the land, and the state own the remaining land, and she said it
only makes sense that the people that own the land and the fish and
wildlife of the land have some type of cooperative working
relationship for the best interests of the resources. AFN feels
that co-management or cooperative arrangements is one way that is
in the best interest of protecting the resources. AFN also feels
that their people living in communities that get surrounded by in-
migration and population growth through no fault of their own
because of any type of resource development should not lose the
protections that they have to continue their way of life.
Addressing the legislation before the committee, Ms. Kitka said AFN
was reluctant to comment on the legislation until all the cards
were on the table. She emphasized the people had to come to Juneau
to deal with the Legislature in good faith and were concerned that
those issues be put on the table for open scrutiny, analysis and
discussion prior to any legislation moving forward.
Speaking to the lawsuit filed by the Legislative Council, Ms. Kitka
stated the AFN has filed a motion to intervene in that lawsuit.
However, that motion to intervene will not be ruled on until a
motion to dismiss has been ruled on. AFN totally disagrees with
the Legislative Council's effort to overturn Title VIII of ANILCA,
and believes that the lawsuit is bad public policy and a bad use
of state resources.
In her closing comments, Ms. Kitka said AFN would be glad to
respond to specific legislation in detail once they've had a chance
to analyze them. She added AFN would like to deal with the
Legislature in good faith, but they are extremely concerned that
might not be the case coming down here.
Number 395
SENATOR WARD restated his question relating to AFN working with the
Governor on the proposal before the Legislature. MS. KITKA stated
it was AFN's position that what happened at the First Special
Session failed, that there was no definitive proposal put before
the voters of the state. AFN is reserving the right to take a look
at what this Legislature in this special session puts on the table
before commenting on what's good or what's not good. She added
that AFN was led to believe that this special session was actually
going to be dealing with the fishery crisis in Western Alaska.
SENATOR WARD said in a June 29, 1998 letter, Governor Knowles said
that AFN worked with him and others to put forth this compromise
legislation, and he asked if that was a true statement. MS. KITKA
responded that the Governor had communicated with the Secretary of
the Interior, but she was not privy to those communications.
SENATOR WARD concluded that AFN had not worked with others on the
compromise legislation.
Number 443
CHAIRMAN HALFORD said if the Legislature passes the constitutional
amendment as proposed by the Administration, it ratifies and makes
law the Stevens' amendments, which AFN opposes, and if the
Legislature does not pass the constitutional amendment, the
Stevens' amendments then go away, so AFN's position is as confusing
to the Legislature as the Legislature's position is to them. MS.
KITKA stated that AFN has never supported changes to ANILCA and AFN
called for a White House veto of those amendments. AFN is very
interested in helping the Legislature resolve this conflict and
regaining management, but not at the expense of the protections of
the people they represent.
SENATOR LINCOLN commented that she did not interpret Governor
Knowles June 29 letter in the same way Senator Ward had; that what
was referred to was the First Special Session and AFN working
towards some solution and not the bill before committee.
CHAIRMAN HALFORD thanked Ms. Kitka for her testimony, and he stated
the Legislature is concerned with what's going on with the
fisheries in Western Alaska, although that topic was not within the
call for a special session. However, if the opportunity arises,
the committee will listen to what the Administration has found in
their efforts and try to see what can be done.
Number 520
STEVE GINNIS, representing the Alaska Inter Tribal Council (AITC),
stated he was the chief of the Native village of Fort Yukon, and he
wanted to make it very clear that the Alaska Native people are
united on this issue and there should be no confusion about what
their position is.
Mr. Ginnis said the AITC voted to oppose a compromise package, and
he outlined the following reasons for their opposition:
1. The constitutional amendment envisioned by the compromise
package incorporates the same definition of "rural, community
or area" that was inserted as an amendment to Title VIII of
ANILCA last fall.
2. The constitutional amendment proposed in the compromise
package would result in the subsistence priority for uses by
residents of a community or area that is substantially
dependent for fish and wildlife for nutritional and other
subsistence uses. There are communities located on lands
historically used and occupied by Natives which have grown to
the point where their Native inhabitants are outnumbered by
non-Native residents. These surrounded Natives could be
denied their subsistence rights because a majority of the
larger communities cannot meet the substantial dependent
standard.
3. The compromise legislation would allow the Legislature to
define "substantial dependents." The compromise no longer
requires the Legislature to reach agreement on the state law.
The record shows that this Legislature has been hostile to the
subsistence rights, and there is no way to know how it might
define "substantial dependents."
4. The 1997 ANILCA amendments have been incorporated in the
legislative compromise, and those amendments are viewed as
seriously weakening the current protections for subsistence
use in Alaska.
5. The compromise does not conform to the guiding principles
adopted by the Native community.
TAPE 98-50, SIDE B
In closing, Mr. Ginnis said the compromise is not a compromise
because a true compromise is one in which both sides give up their
more extreme positions in an effort to arrive at some middle
ground, and, in this case, the state has given up nothing while the
Native people's protections are being threatened, eroded and
eventually eliminated. The Alaska Native people are seeking a
solution that recognizes the parity of their cultural aspects of
subsistence for their tribes; allows tribal leaders input into how
subsistence is managed; protection of cultural rights of surrounded
Natives; allows the federal government to continue its role of
protecting their subsistence; and assurance that there will be no
further attempts to amend federal laws in ways that would take away
subsistence programs.
Number 567
SENATOR TAYLOR told MR. Ginnis he was shocked at the proposal that
he saw when the Legislature was called back into special session.
He said he thought it went a long ways further from AITC's
position, and he didn't see where a compromise was occurring in
the language being offered in the legislation.
Number 553
DICK BISHOP, Vice President, Alaska Outdoor Council (AOC), stated
that the AOC was not involved in putting forth the compromise
legislation which was before the committee. He said he really
didn't have anything new to say. Much of it has been said before
on behalf of the AOC, and a lot of it other people have said.
Speaking to SJR 201, Mr. Bishop said it is not consistent with what
the Alaska Outdoor Council has advocated in the past and, as
written, they would have to oppose it. A fundamental question in
this issue that ranges widely in terms of people's values and
interests is, in fact, whether the state of Alaska should embody in
its constitution what the Supreme Court of Alaska has characterized
as unacceptable discrimination regarding the use of fish and game
by Alaskans to meet their basic necessities. The basic issue is
that this is a proposal for the state to institutionalize
discrimination against the majority of Alaskans based on where they
live. The AOC is opposed to institutionalizing such a provision,
and they don't believe a constitutional amendment of any kind is
needed to adequately and property accommodate the subsistence needs
of those who depend on fish and wildlife and other resources to
sustain a subsistence lifestyle or to supplement it. It can be
done through management and regulation as it has been done in the
past.
Mr. Bishop said if an amendment were to be considered, the AOC
would like to see it not violate the provisions of common use and
equal access, and it could be done by emphasizing the importance of
subsistence uses and tailoring it to meet the needs of people who
do rely on subsistence uses for their livelihood.
Mr. Bishop said the root cause of the controversy over subsistence
is not in the state constitution; it's in ANILCA and that's where
the changes need to be made. Lacking ANILCA amendments the fish
and game management and allocation will continue to be
unsatisfactorily. If the state amends its constitution to conform
with federal law, the bottom line is that the state will be bound
to operate by federal law, which will be enforced by federal courts
whenever there is a dispute.
Mr. Bishop reiterated that the AOC does not support a
constitutional amendment, however he made several suggestions on
what they believe one should contain should the Legislature
anticipate a constitutional amendment that would comply with
federal law.
Number 396
MYRON NANNING, President, Association of Village Council Presidents
(AVCP), requested that the committee take the time to hear from all
Native people representing tribes and organizations who came all
the way to Juneau to testify. He said they are united as a Native
people in their determination to protect their subsistence way of
life for their children and future generations, and each tribe has
its concerns and the right to be heard.
Mr. Nanning said AVCP is simply amazed that some members of this
Legislature demand the right to sue to overturn ANILCA. AVCP and
Chalista region pushed for Title VIII of ANILCA because the state
of Alaska failed to recognize and protect their subsistence way of
life. He said the state should recognize the priority of
subsistence that is consistent with ANILCA. Title VIII of ANILCA
was a promise made by the state of Alaska.
Mr. Nanning expressed thanks to the few legislators who, he said,
have stood by his people in the past and continue to do so.
Number 347
SENATOR WARD asked Mr. Nanning if he had read the legislation
before the committee and his position on it. MR. NANNING replied
that AVCP is looking at the proposed legislation and anything else
that is put on the table before it will make any determination on
where it stands. He also clarified to Senator Ward that as far as
AVCP is concerned, the Governor's June 29 proposal is a dead issue.
He added that AVCP supports co-management.
Number 317
CARL ROSIER, President, Territorial Sportsmen Inc. (TSI), stated
TSI was not one of the organization referred to in the Governor's
June 29 letter relating to the proposed solution to the subsistence
dilemma. He said he thinks everybody is spinning their wheels in
finding a solution that is, in fact, going to be fair to all
residents of the state. It is not a solution to subsistence to do
it on the basis of zip codes. The Territorial Sportsmen recognize,
as a sporting group, that this is a very legitimate use of fish and
game in the state, and it should be an issue that is protected. In
his estimation, it is not worthy of constitutional protection; it
can done without doing damage to the equal rights provisions of
the state constitution.
Mr. Rosier said SJR 201 is not necessary, but if the Legislature
feels that it has to move ahead with some kind of a constitutional
amendment, TSI believes that the provisions of the resolution, as
currently drafted, are not acceptable at all. TSI objects to the
"shall" in place of the "may", they object to the two-year time
frame, which they believe drags out the issue, and with the lack
of any reference to ANILCA amendments, there is no solution
whatsoever with the proposal before the committee.
Speaking to SB 2001, Mr. Rosier said TSI would have to agree with
Senator Halford that there is either the authority to intervene or
there isn't the power to intervene.
Mr. Rosier suggested in trying to find a real Alaska solution to
the subsistence issue, to start with the Supreme Court's decision
and then add the necessary amendments to ANILCA.
Number 206
SENATOR LINCOLN asked Mr. Rosier if he would also object to a four-
year moratorium. MR. ROSIER replied that he would object to any
moratorium. He believes the issue has to be taken to the highest
court in the land, and whatever time it takes, is time well spent.
Number 154
SENATOR TAYLOR commented that other than the people from the
Administration testifying in support of the legislation before the
committee, there had not been a single person testifying in support
of it. He said it seemed to him that the Governor had succeeded in
coming up with a scheme that absolutely nobody likes.
SENATOR LINCOLN said the subsistence issue has been around for
several years, and she asked Mr. Rosier if when he was the
commissioner of fish and game during a previous administration, did
he go out and hold hearings with the general public to get their
input on what they thought the resolution was on subsistence. MR.
ROSIER replied that he did, and he pointed out that the Hickel
Administration also had a task force which ultimately put together
what he considers to be the best shot at resolving the subsistence
problem, which was dealing with ANILCA.
TAPE 98-51, SIDE A
Number 025
CHAIRMAN HALFORD thanked Mr. Rosier for his testimony and then
announced that the committee would break and reconvene at a call of
the chair the following day. The meeting adjourned at 7:15 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|