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.