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.