HOUSE RESOURCES STANDING COMMITTEE September 10, 1997 Bethel, Alaska 9:15 a.m. MEMBERS PRESENT Representative Bill Hudson, Co-Chairman Representative Fred Dyson Representative Joe Green Representative William K. ("Bill") Williams Representative Irene Nicholia Representative Reggie Joule MEMBERS ABSENT Representative Scott Ogan, Co-Chairman Representative Beverly Masek, Vice Chair Representative Ramona Barnes COMMITTEE CALENDAR Public Subsistence Hearing PREVIOUS ACTION No previous action to record WITNESS REGISTER REPRESENTATIVE IVAN IVAN Alaska State Legislature Capitol Building, Room 418 Juneau, Alaska 99801 Telephone: (907) 465-4942 POSITION STATEMENT: Provided opening remarks. SENATOR LYMAN HOFFMAN Alaska State Legislature Capitol Building, Room 7 Juneau, Alaska 99801 Telephone: (907) 465-4453 POSITION STATEMENT: Provided opening remarks. MARY C. PETE, Director Division of Subsistence Department of Fish and Game P.O. Box 25526 Juneau, Alaska 99802-5526 Telephone: (907) 465-2066 (907) 543-3107 (Seasonal office - Bethel) POSITION STATEMENT: Provided comments from the department and task force; answered questions. TOM WARNER P.O. Box 1258 Bethel, Alaska 99559 Telephone: (907) 543-2554 POSITION STATEMENT: Testified regarding task force recommendations. ANTONE ANVIL, Traditional Chief Orutsararmuit Native Council P.O. Box 1924 Bethel, Alaska 99559 Telephone: (907) 543-2534 POSITION STATEMENT: Testified regarding subsistence. BILLY McCANN P.O. Box 1924 Bethel, Alaska 99559 Telephone: (907) 543-2788 POSITION STATEMENT: Testified regarding subsistence. MYRON P. NANENG, SR., President Association of Village Council Presidents, Incorporated P.O. Box 219 Bethel, Alaska 99559 Telephone: (907) 543-7301 POSITION STATEMENT: Testified regarding subsistence. ARTHUR LAKE, Tribal Administrator Native Village of Kwigillingok P.O. Box 49 Kwigillingok, Alaska 99622 Telephone: (907) 588-8114 POSITION STATEMENT: Testified regarding subsistence. OWEN BEAVER P.O. Box 75 Kwigillingok, Alaska 99622 Telephone: (907) 588-8229 POSITION STATEMENT: Testified regarding subsistence. PETE JOHN Native Village of Kwigillingok P.O. Box 49 Kwigillingok, Alaska 99622 Telephone: (907) 588-8114 POSITION STATEMENT: Testified regarding subsistence. CHRIS COOKE P.O. Box 555 Bethel, Alaska 99559 Telephone: (907) 543-3107 POSITION STATEMENT: Testified regarding subsistence. JOHN ABRAHAM (No address provided) Toksook Bay, Alaska 99637 Telephone: (907) 427-7751 POSITION STATEMENT: Testified regarding subsistence. JOHN P. JONES P.O. Box 231 Bethel, Alaska 99559 (No telephone number provided) POSITION STATEMENT: Testified regarding Native Subsistence Summit resolution and other issues. JOAN HAMILTON P.O. Box 1275 Bethel, Alaska 99559-1275 Telephone: (907) 543-3454 POSITION STATEMENT: Testified regarding subsistence. JOHN WHITE P.O. Box 190 Bethel, Alaska 99599 Telephone: (907) 543-2926 POSITION STATEMENT: Testified regarding subsistence. FRANK CHARLES P.O. Box 36 Bethel, Alaska 99559 Telephone: (907) 543-3192 POSITION STATEMENT: Testified regarding subsistence. WILLIE KASAYULIE, Tribal Services Director Akiachak Native Community Akiachak Indian Reorganization Act Council P.O. Box 70 Akiachak, Alaska 99551 POSITION STATEMENT: Testified regarding subsistence. RAYMOND TEELUK c/o Kotlik Traditional Council P.O. Box 20096 Kotlik, Alaska 99620 Telephone: (907) 899-4326 POSITION STATEMENT: Testified regarding subsistence. ROBERT OKITKUN, Director Kotlik Yupik Corporation P.O. Box 20207 Kotlik, Alaska 99620 Telephone: (907) 899-4014 POSITION STATEMENT: Testified regarding subsistence. JACKSON LOMACK, Vice Chairman Akiachak IRA Council c/o Akiachak Native Community P.O. Box 70 Akiachak, Alaska 99551 Telephone: (907) 825-4626 POSITION STATEMENT: Testified regarding subsistence. JOHN GEORGE, Tribal Administrator Nightmute Traditional Council P.O. Box 90021 Nightmute, Alaska 99690 Telephone: (907) 647-6215 POSITION STATEMENT: Testified regarding subsistence. HERMAN MORGAN P.O. Box 78 Aniak, Alaska 99557 Telephone: (907) 675-4393 POSITION STATEMENT: Testified regarding subsistence. FRANK FOX, Natural Resources Director Native Village of Kwinhagak (No address provided) Quinhagak, Alaska 99655 Telephone: (907) 556-8350 POSITION STATEMENT: Testified regarding subsistence. PAUL BEEBE, Member Quinhagak IRA Council P.O. Box 154 Quinhagak, Alaska 99655 Telephone: (907) 556-8167 POSITION STATEMENT: Testified regarding subsistence. JOHN SHARP P.O. Box 126 Quinhagak, Alaska 99655 Telephone: (907) 556-8615 POSITION STATEMENT: Testified regarding subsistence. DAVID KAGANAK c/o Scammon Bay Traditional Council P.O. Box 126 Scammon Bay, Alaska 99662 Telephone: (907) 558-5425 POSITION STATEMENT: Testified regarding subsistence. CARL DOCK Kipnuk Traditional Council P.O. Box 57 Kipnuk, Alaska 99614 Telephone: (907) 896-5515 POSITION STATEMENT: Testified regarding subsistence. NICK LUPIE c/o Tuntutuliak Traditional Council P.O. Box WTL Tuntutuliak, Alaska 99680 Telephone: (907) POSITION STATEMENT: Testified regarding subsistence. PETER ELACHIK P.O. Box 20015 Kotlik, Alaska 99620-0015 Telephone: (907) 899-4459 POSITION STATEMENT: Testified regarding subsistence. WILLIE KAMKOFF (No address provided) Kotlik, Alaska 99620 Telephone: (907) 899-4459 POSITION STATEMENT: Testified regarding subsistence. MYRA OLSEN, Chief Egegik Tribal Council P.O. Box 74 Egegik, Alaska 99579 Telephone: (907) 233-2424 POSITION STATEMENT: Testified regarding subsistence. NOAH ANDREW P.O. Box 61 Tuluksak, Alaska 99679-0061 Telephone: (907) 695-6420 POSITION STATEMENT: Testified regarding subsistence. CORRINE OLSEN P.O. Box 152 Egegik, Alaska 99579 (No telephone number provided) POSITION STATEMENT: Testified regarding subsistence. JAMES GUY, SR. P.O. Box 123 Kwethluk, Alaska 99621 Telephone: (907) 757-6312 POSITION STATEMENT: Testified regarding subsistence. JOHNNY EVAN P.O. Box 1814 Bethel, Alaska 99539 Telephone: (907) 543-2317 POSITION STATEMENT: Testified regarding subsistence. TAD MILLER P.O. Box 122 Bethel, Alaska 99539 Telephone: (907) 534-5600 POSITION STATEMENT: Testified regarding subsistence. FRANK CHIHGLIAK P.O. Box 1381 Bethel, Alaska 99539 Telephone: (907) 543-2472 POSITION STATEMENT: Testified regarding subsistence. PASCHAL AFCAN P.O. Box 1866 Bethel, Alaska 99539 Telephone: (907) 543-2024 POSITION STATEMENT: Testified regarding subsistence. DICK ANDREW P.O. Box 112 Bethel, Alaska 99539 Telephone: (907) 543-2105 POSITION STATEMENT: Testified regarding subsistence. JOBE ABRAHAM P.O. Box 10 Chefornak, Alaska 99561 Telephone: (907) 876-8893 POSITION STATEMENT: Testified regarding subsistence. MATTHEW NICOLAI, President Calista Corporation 601 West 5th Avenue Anchorage, Alaska 99502 Telephone: (907) 279-5516 POSITION STATEMENT: Testified regarding subsistence. JOSEPH ALEXIE, President Tuluksak IRA Council P.O. Box 135 Tuluksak, Alaska 99679 Telephone: (907) 695-6420 POSITION STATEMENT: Testified regarding subsistence. FRED SMITH General Delivery Napaskiat, Alaska 99559 Telephone: (907) 737-7143 POSITION STATEMENT: Testified regarding subsistence. MOSES PETER Village of Tuluksak P.O. Box 57 Tuluksak, Alaska 99679 Telephone: (907) 695-6902 POSITION STATEMENT: Testified regarding subsistence. ANDY SHARP P.O. Box 26 Quinhagak, Alaska 99655 Telephone: (907) 556-8126 POSITION STATEMENT: Testified regarding subsistence. DARIO NOTTI P.O. Box 2175 Bethel, Alaska 99559 Telephone: (907) 543-3072 POSITION STATEMENT: Testified regarding subsistence. ANASTASIA HOFFMAN P.O. Box 2374 Bethel, Alaska 99559 Telephone: (907) 543-2141 POSITION STATEMENT: Testified regarding subsistence. BONNIE KOWCHEE P.O. Box 1724 Bethel, Alaska 99559 Telephone: (907) 543-5890 POSITION STATEMENT: Testified regarding subsistence. JAMES A. PETER P.O. Box 491 Bethel, Alaska 99559-0491 Telephone: (907) 543-2627 POSITION STATEMENT: Testified regarding subsistence. GARY VANASSE P.O. Box 1544 Bethel, Alaska 99559 Telephone: (907) 543-3031 POSITION STATEMENT: Testified regarding subsistence. NICK O. NICK (No address provided) Bethel, Alaska 99559 Telephone: (907) 543-9969 POSITION STATEMENT: Testified regarding subsistence. KATHLEEN POLTY P.O. Box 5043 Pilot Station, 99650 Telephone: (907) 549-3211 POSITION STATEMENT: Testified regarding subsistence. ROBERT NICK P.O. Box 49 Nunapitchuk, Alaska 99641 Telephone: (907) 527-5127 POSITION STATEMENT: Testified regarding subsistence. JOHN PHILLIP P.O. Box 5031 Kongiganak, Alaska 99559-5031 Telephone: (907) 557-5227 POSITION STATEMENT: Testified regarding subsistence. GREGORY ANELON (No address provided) Newhalen, Alaska 99606 Telephone: (907) 527-1317 POSITION STATEMENT: Testified regarding subsistence. ACTION NARRATIVE TAPE 97-53, SIDE A Number 001 CO-CHAIRMAN BILL HUDSON called the House Resources Standing Committee meeting to order at 9:15 a.m. at the Yupiit Piciryarait Cultural Center in Bethel. Members present at the call to order were Representatives Hudson, Dyson, Green, Williams, Nicholia and Joule. Interpreters in Bethel were Joseph ("Trim") Nick, the primary interpreter for the meeting, 543-5042 or 543-3521; John Active, 543-3704; and Lillian Michael of KYUK Radio, who translated for the radio audience. PUBLIC SUBSISTENCE HEARING CO-CHAIRMAN HUDSON welcomed participants and listeners. He introduced committee members and noted that the House Judiciary Standing Committee, chaired by Representative Green, is one of the next two committees that must hear this issue before official action can be taken by the legislature. He then introduced Senator Lyman Hoffman and Representative Ivan Ivan. CO-CHAIRMAN HUDSON advised listeners that the Speaker of the House had offered the assistance of Ted Popely and Ron Somerville, who had both worked closely with the task force. The task force report is not out; it is only a recommendation at this time. Co-Chairman Hudson commented that although he calls it the "Governor's task force," he is not certain the Governor wants credit for it. He noted that Mary Pete would discuss the task force recommendations. Number 055 CO-CHAIRMAN HUDSON acknowledged the assistance of Amy Daugherty, legislative assistant to Representative Alan Austerman, who was acting as committee aide that day, and he thanked Nelson Davies of the Bethel Legislative Information Office (LIO) for putting this hearing together. CO-CHAIRMAN HUDSON reminded participants that materials were available at the back of the room. They'd tried to put together comments to direct testifiers' input towards issues that the task force had determined to be important. He stated, "Our goal here today is to not tell you what we think, not tell you how we believe the subsistence ought to be handled, but to hear you and find out from you, the real Alaskans who live in this region, including all those who are listening from the villages and who will be given an opportunity to testify as we progress on through this hearing." Co-Chairman Hudson emphasized the informality of the hearing. Although lifting the strict time limit, he encouraged participants to keep comments to around five minutes. He called upon Representative Ivan to offer opening remarks. Number 086 REPRESENTATIVE IVAN IVAN welcomed the House Resources Standing Committee, saying subsistence is near and dear to the hearts of the people in that area. He explained, "It's a complex issue in terms of legal terminology and how the issue will be drafted or considered for discussion, but very, very simple when you live it and were born to this issue before us. It's very simple as we live in our communities and as we're taught by our elders to continue the tradition on. And over the years, this issue has been discussed. It's been authorized in the state statutes and found to be unconstitutional. So, therefore we're back here again to consider the issue before us." REPRESENTATIVE IVAN referred to the federal government and said community members look to the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA) as an "insurance to continue the lifestyle that we were born to and enjoy in this area, and that's the hunting and fishing livelihood that our folks continue to do." He invited the committee to consider a hearing in Dillingham, a hub for Southwest Alaska, which has a similar constituency and similar communities. He thanked committee members for traveling from their own districts for this hearing. CO-CHAIRMAN HUDSON invited Senator Hoffman to comment as well. Number 124 SENATOR LYMAN HOFFMAN specified that his comments were to the committee members. He said that while subsistence is a critical issue, a bigger issue before the state is retention of the right to manage fish and game in Alaska. Whether or not they resolve that question at the state level, there will continue to be subsistence rights for many Alaskans. It is a matter of who is managing the resources. He said it is a crying shame the state hasn't brought this issue before a vote of the people. He believes the majority of Alaskans want to resolve it and vote on it. Studies show that subsistence uses only 4 percent of Alaska's fish and game. Alaskans fought long and hard on this issue, and one of the main reasons Alaska became a state was to retain management of fish and game resources. "And for us to throw this all away now because we can't decide on the allocation of the 4 percent doesn't seem to make much sense to this Senator," he concluded. Number 156 CO-CHAIRMAN HUDSON advised listeners that all committee members had been invited, although not everyone had been able to attend. CO-CHAIRMAN HUDSON announced the plan was to hear from those who were present for approximately two hours, then to take testimony via teleconference from the villages. They were building a record for all legislators who were unable to attend. In addition to oral testimony, they were seeking written testimony, specifically in relation to the task force recommendation, which is the only full proposal that they'd had in a number of years. Although elements of subsistence had been presented previously, they hadn't had all three together: state law, federal law (ANILCA) and the state constitution. All three elements must figure in an ultimate solution to this complex issue. Co-Chairman Hudson emphasized that written comments could be sent in or faxed later. He called upon committee members to make opening comments. Number 203 REPRESENTATIVE IRENE NICHOLIA stated, "Good morning. It's good to be here. I've been here before, and I enjoyed being in this area. The lifestyle here is very similar to the one that I lead in the village of Tanana, which is located on the Yukon River. And the lifestyle that I lead is fishing for king salmon, picking berries. And right now, I'm actually missing out on that thing, but I think being here and listening to your views on subsistence is more important at this time. I look forward to hearing what you have to say, and listening very closely, and bringing those views to Juneau, if we ever have a special session on subsistence." REPRESENTATIVE JOE GREEN noted that he and Representative Dyson are from the Anchorage area. He believes it speaks well for the committee that it is composed of a cross-section of Alaskans. He expressed hope that whatever they hear or ultimately do won't be divisive. He said, "I think all of us want the same thing. We want unanimity. In some cases, I think the state is at odds with the federal government. Sometimes we're at odds with the other states. But certainly we shouldn't be at odds with each other." REPRESENTATIVE GREEN said he was there to listen. He noted that everyone comes to a meeting like this with some degree of bias, based on background or who they represent. "But I don't think that should keep us from being open to hearing what we hear here, as well as when we go to Ketchikan and any other hearings we may have on this very, very tough issue, because there are some strong opinions, emotional opinions," he said. "It's one of the many issues that we face in our legislature which can create, really, anger among our people. And I think that's wrong. When I say `our people,' I think all of us in Alaska are `our people.' And I think we need to stand united, whatever we decide. And I'm looking forward to that." Number 241 REPRESENTATIVE BILL WILLIAMS said he was pleased and honored to be there. He'd never been to that area. He noted how different it is from mountainous Southeast Alaska, which has a subsistence lifestyle altogether different from that of the Bethel area. He explained, "A lot of the Tlingit and Haidas and Tsimshians from my area have a feeling of a subsistence lifestyle. We still have a feeling culturally. And a lot of our people don't really depend on the subsistence lifestyle; the majority of them I know don't. But ... we still like to be able to live it, and would want to, whether it's cultural or however it may be. But we are there for you people that really live it, and we understand it. And maybe I'm talking out of school right now, but I believe you, the people ... in this area, have to have a subsistence lifestyle." REPRESENTATIVE WILLIAMS continued, "I would like to be able to hear from you .... It isn't whether or not you're going to have subsistence, because I know you're going to have subsistence; that's going to continue on. Nobody's going to take that away from you. ... Even if there's a law that says that ... you cannot hunt subsistence, you will hunt subsistence. You've done it, and you'll do it and continue to do so." Representative Williams expressed interest in hearing how the people of that area feel about the federal takeover, whether it is a problem, and how they think the state can help them in managing the fish and game. Number 285 REPRESENTATIVE REGGIE JOULE told how the Eskimo name he was given at birth, Isiqruktuaq, comes from the whaling community of Point Hope, where his family is from. When they butcher a whale on the ice, a person takes the membrane from the liver for use as a drum, "to get that softer, different tone." That is the meaning of his Eskimo name. Subsistence even goes to people's names, defining them more than what they just eat. Representative Joule's wife is originally from Bethel, and he has family there as well. He hoped to hear, loud and clear, from the people of that area about this important issue. In meetings where subsistence is discussed, they talk about laws and regulations; however, the real subsistence activity, and the expertise of that, happens at the fish camps on the river, on the coast, and at people's homes. "And we try, somehow, to ask you to bring that expertise into these meeting rooms," he said. He concluded by expressing hope that this committee would continue to visit other rural areas of Alaska. Number 350 REPRESENTATIVE FRED DYSON stated, "I do believe that one really high priority is to try to preserve, as much as we can, some sense of unity amongst us, agree on the things we can and work together on them, and the things we disagree on, to realize we can still work together and go forth. I agree with Bill Williams. I think that ultimately, no matter what happens, the people that live closest to the fish and game, that are the best hunters and fishermen, are going to get the game. And that's the way it's always been. And whatever we do with regulations and so on will only slightly impact that and has more symbolic value, probably, than actual, because the good hunters still get the game and the best fishermen still get -- and by the way, I fish in Bristol Bay. I've been doing that for 20 years." He clarified that he lives in Eagle River, where people don't consider themselves "city folks," and he doesn't go to Anchorage any more than he has to. Number 378 CO-CHAIRMAN HUDSON stated, "I think there's one common denominator ... that we all have an interest in. We're talking about fisheries. We're talking about game and wildlife and resources that we use, that you use, more specifically than those of us in urban Alaska, on a day-to-day basis, and how important it is that, number one, that we have good management ability to see that there's plentiful game, that the fish continue to thrive. And I think that, if there's no other reason why we should have this hearing and why we should be bringing up this subject today, in addition to the fact that ... the courts have struck down Alaska's long-term efforts to manage the fish and wildlife in Alaska for the varied uses, including subsistence and for commercial and sports and, obviously, for survival of even the stock or the game herds or whatever else it might be." CO-CHAIRMAN HUDSON continued, "But the management issue is the part that worries me most. And it's different when you start talking about management of fish than it is of game. The game can move across from state to private to Native lands, perhaps, federal lands, and through the parks and preserves and across the Great Plains and to the coast and survive, if they can beat the mosquitoes and the flies and things of that nature. But when we start talking about fish, we're talking about the need for a very complex, and absolutely necessary, scientific and biologically sound process." CO-CHAIRMAN HUDSON continued, "That is, in my opinion, the most important thing that we have to draw our attention to. If we find a solution, we have to make certain that that solution provides for a sound management system, particularly of our fisheries, because when you take a great system like the Yukon River, for example, or the Kuskokwim River, there are many, many villages up the river and in the surrounding areas that are absolutely dependent upon this, then, taking of hundreds of those fish for their own subsistence needs, as well as for their family and for their daily lifestyle needs." CO-CHAIRMAN HUDSON continued, "Now, how you manage a big system like the Yukon is really very, very important, and probably one of the most important things that we must keep in mind. It's not a question of who gets it. It's a question of whether or not we're going to have it. And so, what I'm looking for is an educational system that goes both ways, where we can help you understand the management needs and you can help us understand the ultimate uses and also the intricate management needs in your particular region, from your backgrounds and experience. So, that's one of the things that I kind of hope that we'll work on." CO-CHAIRMAN HUDSON asked Mary Pete to join them at the table. He stated, "And we've asked the Governor's office, the Attorney General, if they would provide someone here that could explain, in an abbreviated form, at any rate, what the task force has come up with. And that will sort of set the stage and give us some sort of a common thing to talk about. But as you talk, and as you think about this whole thing, I hope that you'll remember that ultimately, when we get all done, we don't want someone to win over the expense of someone else, at the expense of losing the very thing we both sought in the beginning, and that is the propagation of the fish, the propagation of the herds, whether they're caribou or moose, whatever they might be, and the maintenance of the habitat and the biological interests surrounding those types of things." CO-CHAIRMAN HUDSON concluded, "And if we all keep those things in mind, I believe that we can come out of this whole dialogue and discussion, for the first time in all the years that this issue has been alive and divided us, I think we can come out with something that we can honestly put together in the necessary books of law and in the necessary management schemes. And I hope that it's state management, because that's the reason we are a state. Otherwise, we may as well just be a federal territory, and I don't think we need to go backwards." Number 470 MARY C. PETE, Director, Division of Subsistence, Department of Fish and Game, came forward to testify. She explained that although members of the Attorney General's staff or the task force couldn't be there, they had asked her to read information into the record and be available for questions. She advised members that she would read a synopsis from a purple sheet (Summary of Draft Package for a Subsistence Priority and Returning Fish and Game Management to the State) and information from a green sheet (House Resources Committee Summary - Governor's Subsistence Task Force Proposal). In addition, she would address some management issues from the perspective of department staff, who had put together a summary of comments regarding the package. MS. PETE noted that the first document says there are two primary goals: to ensure effective state authority over fish and game management on all lands and waters of Alaska and to recognize the paramount importance of the subsistence way of life to Alaskans. That document states in part: "We understand that Alaskans may be reluctant to amend the Alaska Constitution without knowing what changes will be made in ANILCA and the state fish and game statutes. The solution is a linked package of amendments to ANILCA, the Alaska Constitution and the Alaska statutes. The effective date of the ANILCA amendments and the state statutory amendments will be the passage of the constitutional amendment. The voters will know exactly what is in the ANILCA amendments and the state statutory amendments when they vote on the constitutional amendment. The package will include a Congressional determination that the state, upon passage of the constitutional amendment and implementation of the revised statutes, is in compliance with ANILCA and may resume fish and game management statewide. The constitutional amendment cannot be voted on until the November 1998 general election. "The constitution will be amended to permit, but not to require, the Alaska legislature to grant a subsistence priority to rural residents. Simultaneously, state statutes will be amended to create a rural subsistence priority, and those statutes, and the ANILCA amendments, will become effective only if the constitutional amendment is passed. "The fish and game statutes will be amended to grant a subsistence priority to rural residents. Communities outside the current nonsubsistence areas will be classified as rural on the day the state regains management. The Boards of Fisheries and Game, acting jointly through regulation, will have the power to change community classifications (add or delete) in the future a communities change." MS. PETE noted that the statutes will also be amended to improve the proxy hunting and fishing provisions; provide for educational hunting and fishing permits; clarify the definitions of "rural" and "customary trade"; make it clear that the subsistence priority is a reasonable opportunity to take, not a guarantee of taking; and refine the subsistence management system, including adding the state regional subsistence council. Number 542 MS. PETE reported that the ANILCA amendments fall into four categories: definitions; court oversight; state management; and "Congressional Seal of Approval, Non-Compliance, and Neutrality on Indian Country." From the section on definitions in the same document, she read, with comments: "The priority created by ANILCA is keyed to rural residency, but `rural' is not defined in ANILCA. ANILCA leaves the determination of what is rural to the administrative process, subject to court review. In this package, a rural community or area has been carefully defined as `a community or area substantially dependent on fish and game for nutritional and other subsistence uses.' In addition, `customary trade' will be defined so that subsistence taking of fish and game cannot become a commercial enterprise. `Customary and traditional,' an operative but undefined term in ANILCA, will also be defined. Finally, the concept of `reasonable opportunity' will be defined to make clear that the priority is a reasonable opportunity to take, not a guarantee of taking, in other words, to match the state definition." MS. PETE referred to court oversight. She said Section 807 will be amended to state that the standard of review for actions of the Boards of Fisheries and Game will be "arbitrary, capricious or an abuse of discretion." It will also require the federal courts to give board decisions the same deference that would be given a federal agency decision. She stated, "Adding these standards is not believed to be a change in current federal law, but the standards are not explicit in Title VIII." MS. PETE referred to state management. She said Title VIII will be amended to make it clear that the state manages subsistence on all lands and waters, whether federal, state or private. Section 814 will be amended so that the Secretary of Interior cannot make or enforce subsistence regulations while the state is managing. Section 806, requiring annual reporting on subsistence by the Secretary, will be repealed, but nothing will prohibit the Secretary from reporting on subsistence activities. In addition, the definition of "federal public lands" will be clarified to ensure that it excludes all private and state lands. Ms. Pete read, "The collective purpose of these amendments is to make clear that the Secretary has no management authority while the state is managing in compliance with ANILCA." She noted that the final section "basically declares these changes neutral on the issues of Indian country and sovereignty." Number 599 MS. PETE compared the federal management system with the proposed state system, saying, "In terms of regulatory boards, the proposed state system will use the state Boards of Fisheries and Game to make (indisc.--coughing) regulations. Although not required by ANILCA, the federal system currently uses a single-purpose subsistence board, composed of Alaska directors and five federal agencies, plus one public member. In terms of the regional council system, which is under the proposed ... reformed management regime, both the federal and the proposed state systems use regional councils. Under the federal system, all council members must be from the region, but there is no requirement that they be subsistence users. On the state councils, there would be seven designated subsistence seats and three nonsubsistence seats. There are ten federal councils, and the state ... proposal would create at least six. This is the same language that's used in ANILCA, by the way. Federal council members are appointed by the Secretary of Interior. The state council members would be appointed by the Governor." MS. PETE continued, "Deference given by the board to the regional councils: The federal system allows the federal subsistence board to refuse a council recommendation if the board finds it violates recognized principles of fish and wildlife conservation, is not supported by substantial evidence or is detrimental to subsistence. The state plan, instead of using `not supported by substantial evidence,' would use the criteria, `is arbitrary and capricious.' Also, the state board may refuse to follow a recommendation if it involves an unresolved statewide or interregional subsistence management issue or is contrary to and overrides a statewide fish or game management interest." MS. PETE continued, "Council recommendations not adopted by the state board (indisc.--coughing) back to the regional councils for further work. There is no similar federal requirement for remand to the councils. In terms of implementing the subsistence priority, the proposed state act requires that regulations provide a reasonable opportunity for subsistence uses, with an allocation (indisc.) defined as an amount that is reasonably necessary for subsistence uses. And you can find that phrase ... in the state statute." MS. PETE continued, "Federal subsistence (indisc.) procedural steps and standards are less severe. Under the federal subsistence program, subsistence uses are given a preference over nonsubsistence uses ... when it is necessary to restrict taking to ensure continued viability of a fish or wildlife population or the continuation of subsistence uses of such population. However, the federal board makes no determinations about ... harvest amounts necessary for the continuation of subsistence uses, as is required under the state subsistence program." MS. PETE continued, "Without such determinations, it is more difficult for the federal board to measure the effect of its proposed limitations, bags, seasons, methods and other provisions to continue to provide for subsistence uses. And I think that's why we're seeing more and more divergence under the dual-management system of wildlife. We're seeing more and more divergence between state regulations and federal regulations, without the concomitant measure of whether they're actually meeting the needs of subsistence (indisc.), rather than under the federal program." MS. PETE said, "In summary, the state proposal for a subsistence management system, if enacted, would be a better law than the previous state subsistence laws, for several reasons. It provides greater clarity in regards to board procedures. It contains the workable common-sense definition of `rural.' It defines key terms such as `rural' and `reasonable opportunity' in ways that recognize the importance of maintaining customary and traditional use patterns. It creates an (indisc.) regional council process, with a requirement for a substantive participation by tribal councils, but also recognizes ...." [Ends mid-speech due to tape change.] TAPE 97-53, SIDE B Number 001 MS. PETE continued, "... bringing that knowledge into the regulatory system. It moves most subsistence deliberations and problem-solving from the statewide boards to the regional and local level. Cooperative and co-management principles (indisc.) will provide a statutory basis from which effective collaborative management systems can evolve." Ms. Pete offered to answer questions, either then or later, although she had to catch a flight to Juneau at 6:30 p.m. that evening. Number 010 SENATOR HOFFMAN said, "In your presentation, you said that the state is requesting that the requirements for reporting under Section 806 would be repealed ... and the state not required to give that subsistence report to the Secretary. And I was wondering why they would not want that as a requirement." Number 017 MS. PETE replied, "That requirement is of federal agencies in Alaska, ... not of the state." She suggested Ron Somerville or Ted Popely could clarify exactly what went into that repeal. She thought it was to discourage the federal program from keeping its staff structure in place, so that there wasn't a duplication of state and federal staff in subsistence research and management, and so that any reports on subsistence would come from the state rather than the federal agencies themselves. Number 025 CO-CHAIRMAN HUDSON requested that Ms. Pete remain. He asked whether there were questions. He then requested confirmation that those listening on teleconference could hear adequately; Nelson Davies confirmed that. He announced that listening on line were Dave Donaldson in Juneau; Senator Adams in Anchorage; and people from KENI radio and the LIOs in Mat-Su, Juneau, Dillingham and Anchorage. CO-CHAIRMAN HUDSON asked how many in the audience had seen a copy of the Governor's thorough, three-part proposal including changes in ANILCA, the constitution and statutes; comments indicated perhaps six people had seen it. Co-Chairman Hudson explained that the proposal was developed through the auspices of the Office of the Governor and the bipartisan seven-member committee, which had held hearings and met many times to try to find a solution that would preclude the federal takeover of management of Alaska's fish and wildlife resources on October 1. Provided at the current hearing were copies of a synopsis (purple sheet) and copies of the entire proposal, which contained proposed language changes in the statutes, as well as proposed language to present before the public in November of 1998, which would change the constitution. CO-CHAIRMAN HUDSON reminded listeners that the state constitution cannot be changed without a three-quarters' vote of the House and Senate, meeting together and affirming that it shall go on the ballot, and then a majority of Alaskans voting to change the constitution. He explained, "The constitution is so valuable, in the minds of the people who created it and those of us that serve it and attest to uphold it, that ... it takes a great deal in order to make that modification." He urged people to read the report, which may trigger ideas for solutions. He emphasized the importance of beginning to figure out how to resolve this highly complex issue. REPRESENTATIVE NICHOLIA read language from the synopsis that says, "A new section will be added to declare that these ANILCA changes do not affect and cannot be used to argue Indian country and sovereignty issues." She asked Ms. Pete to explain the reason for including that. MS. PETE responded that the neutrality clause was requested by some interest groups in the state. REPRESENTATIVE NICHOLIA asked whether there had been a court case or another reason why that was put in at their request. MS. PETE replied that, as she understood it, there had been interest by particular groups in Alaska to add that this in no way changes ANILCA's status as either "Indian country legislation or not." It is just a neutrality clause. She stated, "It's basically saying, `no comment on the issue of Indian country.'" REPRESENTATIVE NICHOLIA remarked, "I guess that's not how I read it." Number 116 CO-CHAIRMAN HUDSON indicated his belief, from conversations with the Speaker of the House and others actively involved in the seven- member group, that they'd decided that the issues of sovereignty and Indian country are "exclusively different." Because of the time line on this subsistence issue, they'd decided to create a neutral view on the other two issues, which probably require court resolution, rather than dealing with them in this proposal. MS. PETE concurred. Number 131 TOM WARNER came forward to testify, expressing appreciation for the committee's efforts to hear concerns from that area. He noted that subsistence is a complex, emotional issue. He stated the belief that the entire western half of the state, from the North Slope down through Dillingham, King Salmon and the Alaska Peninsula, is the most dependent on subsistence, and it is very important for people there. MR. WARNER said in reading through some of the proposals presented in summary form, he believes the Governor's task force was a good- faith effort, and they addressed a number of the concerns of various groups around the state. However, the problem he might have with those recommendations is in the language of the state constitutional amendment, where it says the constitution will be amended to permit, but not require, the state legislature to grant a subsistence priority for rural residents. "I think the `not require' is a real problem," he said. MR. WARNER explained, "Those of us in rural Alaska have ... unfortunately come to regard the legislature with some suspicion on these kinds of issues. We very often don't feel that the legislature, if they understand our concerns, take them into consideration very much. And so, I would have a real problem with that particular portion of the task force recommendation. There is, as I see it, no way to guarantee any kind of rural preference in perpetuity. I guess my preference ... would be to leave ANILCA alone and simply allow people of the state to vote on a constitutional amendment to comply with the current provisions of ANILCA." MR. WARNER continued, "Barring that, I do not fear federal takeover. I think people in rural Alaska have learned that a federal takeover is not the bugaboo that some might have thought. I would prefer that the state manage, but I think it's extremely important for people in rural Alaska to have this subsistence priority, to have really -- they really have the need for subsistence. If you look at the commercial fishing season in this area, for example, this year was disastrous, just like Bristol Bay was disastrous. For many people in this area, subsistence fish, moose, caribou that they're going to take this year is a huge portion of their food for the year. They aren't going to have the money to go into the grocery store and buy that food. And so, I think it's absolutely imperative ... that the rural residents have some kind of guarantee that they will always have a subsistence priority ... in times of shortage for fish and game." Number 186 ANTONE ANVIL, Traditional Chief, Orutsararmuit Native Council (ONC), came forward to testify. He introduced ONC manager Mary Pavil, then welcomed legislators and staff, emphasizing the importance of hearing especially from the elders who have lived the subsistence way of life. MR. ANVIL said he'd lived off the land for 38 years. His parents had lived off the land as well, without jobs, money or income. He recalled that when he was ten, he went with his father to check traps for mink, fox, otter and muskrat. Instead of receiving money for skins, his father traded skins for groceries at the store, without receiving money. Mr. Anvil characterized the subsistence way of life as a "very hard life for the Natives to go through." MR. ANVIL emphasized that the subsistence lifestyle existed for his ancestors. He strongly believes the federal and state governments should never interfere with the Native subsistence way of life. He said it is getting very bad. Now, they can't even hunt without a permit. His ancestors laid down rules a long time ago, before the Department of Fish and Game started telling them when to hunt. In fall, people hunted deer, reindeer and moose. In spring, people hunted birds when they first arrived but left them alone when the birds began laying eggs. MR. ANVIL mentioned threats to close subsistence fishing in Bethel. A couple of years before, they'd closed subsistence. He restated that his ancestors knew the rules of when to hunt and when not to hunt. He'd like to see a subsistence committee in Bethel. He restated concerns about government regulation, indicating one could go to jail for hunting on federal land. Mr. Anvil concluded, "That's not the way. Our ancestors and our elders, they shouldn't be overruled by the laws and regulations of Fish and Game. I think they should leave us alone and ... let us do our subsistence way of life. Quyana. Thank you." Number 315 REPRESENTATIVE WILLIAMS referred to customary trade, Mr. Anvil's statements about bringing in animal skins to the store, and recommendations from the Office of the Governor about "exchange for cash for fish and game in minimal noncommercial quantities, as determined by regulation." He asked, "How much would you think that a person in this area would have to come up with to live a fairly good life in customary trade? ... Today, there is a number that is being taken up, talked about, that is approximately $15,000 per year, per person, in your family. Would that be sufficient for you to live on in this area?" MR. ANVIL indicated that even with an income of $50,000 a year, he'd rather have subsistence food and the way of life he'd had since he was a child. Number 342 BILLY McCANN came forward to testify, indicating that mostly White people are talking about subsistence, but it is not their life. However, White people's lives are buying food with money, whereas his people's lives are catching and skinning. He suggested it would be wise to "make committees on both sides." He understands the term "priority number one," as he believes everyone does. He doesn't think the changes are right. He indicated he'd like to have a committee selected by the people who know about subsistence, rather than by the Governor or the U.S. President. Referring to statements he'd made in Anchorage, he indicated they'd made two mistakes already: statehood and corporations. Before the corporations, they never talked about land, which was considered everybody's. Now, even Eskimos say, "This is my land." Mr. McCann indicated a third mistake would relate to a vote on subsistence. Number 437 MR. McCANN said he doesn't believe the Eskimo people's lives will change, no matter what the state and federal governments do. He asked the "law people" to "get it written down." He stated, "Give it to us. Don't bother us no more. We don't have no problems. He indicated others do have problems. "Let us control it," he said, indicating he wasn't referring to the Department of Fish and Game assisting wildlife but controlling hunting openings, for example. MR. McCANN related a story about reindeer herders. There had been lots of reindeer at one time. But the herders started fighting, "just like we do now," resulting in the reindeer being "cleaned up" in a couple of years. He emphasized that resources come from the Lord, who is watching at all times. "That's why we should be not fighting too much about it," he said. MR. McCANN indicated he'd like to see a fisheries board in Alaska that isn't composed of people from Juneau or out of state telling them how to live. "We should be the ones saying, `You can do this,'" he explained, noting that if somebody doesn't know how to hunt, they always teach them how to hunt, and he isn't against that. He stated, "Let's work together; that's the main thing." He indicated the desire to make this better for everybody. "We need it, like I said," he concluded. "We're not going to be changed, no matter what. We're going to do it. No matter somebody says `You can't go subsistence hunting.' ... We've got to eat something; we've got to eat. We've got to feed the family. Everybody knows that. Everybody knows that. Even White people are doing the same thing. So, we shouldn't be fighting. Thank you very much." Number 518 REPRESENTATIVE DYSON asked, "What place should making sure that the wild stock prospers and grows and is healthy play in the priorities? Should that be a higher priority than subsistence hunting and fishing?" MR. McCANN asked whether Representative Dyson was talking about what percentage of the wildlife to save. Number 532 REPRESENTATIVE DYSON responded, "Yes, but you said that subsistence should be the highest priority. ... But shouldn't it be a higher priority to make sure that the wild game survives for generations?" MR. McCANN replied, "You are correct. That should be counted. But let's look. He said Eskimos know how much fish to get and use, from year to year, and they should save some too. They don't overdo it. For example, a long time ago, they used to fill up the smokehouse because they had dogs to feed. However, now they use snow machines instead. Number 566 REPRESENTATIVE DYSON asked, "What should we do with migratory animals, like caribou and salmon, who go from one area to another? I fish in Bristol Bay, and you here in the Kuskokwim area. Both of us probably worry that maybe the folks in False Pass and Area M ... get the fish before they get to you or me. Who should decide? You know, should we let the people in False Pass and Area M make all the decisions about the fish coming through there? Or should you here in the Bethel area and we in Bristol Bay have input into that? I mean, isn't that a legitimate function for the Alaska Department of Fish and Game?" MR. McCANN replied that he never goes fishing at False Pass, but all his years, he has been hearing what those people do. He said that should be controlled by "Fish and Game." Number 632 MYRON P. NANENG, SR., President, Association of Village Council Presidents, Incorporated (AVCP), came forward to testify, saying this hearing is only done under duress by the legislature because of the October 1 deadline. He read most of a four-page statement, with added comments. He said the legislature hasn't acted in good faith to protect the subsistence rights for resources. The AVCP has little faith that it will enact any law that really protects the subsistence way of life, the Native way of life. The legislature had rejected the Native communities' offer to hold hearings in Anchorage during the Native Subsistence Summit, where 1,000 Native people from all over the state were present to address the subsistence issue. Instead, on short notice, it put on the present hearing. TAPE 97-54, SIDE A Number 001 MR. NANENG continued. He noted that the hearing is supposed to be an opportunity to hear from all the people in Bethel, Dillingham, all 56 villages in the AVCP region and all the Bristol Bay area villages. He mentioned the previous two-minute limit and asked whether that provided an opportunity to have a say. In the past, elders complained that the state will not listen, that they are always cut off. He said, "All this leads me to wonder if this is really a hearing for ... the Native people or people from the rural areas about subsistence. If the Legislature really wanted to hear about subsistence, they would have accepted the invitation to the Summit. Today's hearing seems to be only a political ploy, a way for the state legislature to show some minimal concern and action on subsistence, while doing nothing or trying to tear the ANILCA protections apart." MR. NANENG said the legislature's lack of commitment to protect subsistence has been demonstrated over the last seven years and two special sessions that would have allowed people to vote on a constitutional amendment. He emphasized that this isn't the first hearing on subsistence. The legislature has also weakened the subsistence law since the McDowell case, by classifying areas within the state as nonsubsistence use areas. He asked whether that demonstrates commitment by the legislature to resolve the subsistence issue. MR. NANENG indicated the legislature has consistently reduced the budget for the Division of Subsistence and the Department of Fish and Game's Division of Commercial Fisheries Management and Development, while increasing funds for sport hunting and fishing. He said, "The legislature has also insisted on oversight of Board of Game decisions, like the recent `bone on meat,' and I'm sorry that one of your committee members is not here to hear that. But it has consistently overlooked board decisions that are adverse or fail to implement the subsistence priority." MR. NANENG continued, "And the legislature has also consistently rejected board nominees who may fairly represent and would work to implement the subsistence priority. Instead, it seems to establish criteria for board members that will ensure that the boards will always be a stronghold for sport and commercial uses. Look at what happened this past year, when nominees were made for the Board of Game." He asked what criteria had been used and suggested that they look at the legislature's own actions. MR. NANENG said the legislature has consistently and effectively destroyed the local advisory committee system by defunding it. He stated, "And whatever they say is not even being considered by the Board of Game or Board of Fish[eries]. The legislature has also initiated and joined on lawsuits filed by the Alaska Outdoor Council, ... contrary to the Native subsistence position. Yet, I'm not aware at any time that the legislature has joined the Native people or a rural person in filing a subsistence lawsuit." MR. NANENG stated that the legislature's dedication of $500,000 to fight "Indian country" in Alaska was conducted in a harsh and insensitive manner, showing lack of understanding by the legislature of the Native people and their culture. He said the legislature must reflect on those actions to determine whether they are committed to protecting the Native way of life. MR. NANENG continued, saying the individual permit system for welfare, which the legislature seems to want to enact, ignores the community/tribal aspect of subsistence that defines the Native subsistence way of life. He said every state, federal and private entity that has ever considered the issue agrees that Native subsistence is an essential community/tribally-based activity that cannot be separated from the Native way of life. He stated, "Native customary and traditional hunting, fishing, gathering, sharing, barter and trade are far more than a way for poor Natives to get their food. But it's a proud way of life for our people. And it has been done for thousands of years. AVCP will resist all efforts to regulate our way of life into a welfare scheme." MR. NANENG described state subsistence management under the Boards of Fisheries and Game as unresponsive, hostile to subsistence needs, and a failure in implementing regulations that reflect customary and traditional seasons, bag limits, practices, methods and means. "The only way that we've had to change them is by filing lawsuits," he noted. "Instead, subsistence uses are regulated consistent with [a] Western non-Native sports approach to hunting and fishing." He believes the boards often use "reasonable opportunity" and other methods to frustrate implementation of any real priority for subsistence. As an example, he cited board regulations that forbid AVCP villages the opportunity to take rainbow trout and steelhead for subsistence but instead advertise and enhance sports fishing for these species. MR. NANENG said his people are considered outlaws because of these regulations, which forbid use of a pole and line for subsistence, for example. The Board of Fisheries has completely failed to protect the sustained yield of Western Alaskan chums, while ignoring any obligation to provide a priority for subsistence uses. He noted that there had been subsistence closures. He said the state management system must be reformed before AVCP will support any return of management, especially regarding subsistence, to the state. MR. NANENG said any solution that returns management to Alaska must include a co-management role for the tribes. Fortunately, most of the lands within the AVCP region are within federal lands. "And ... we're working with the federal board on many of the issues because the state has lost its management," he said. "Under the federal management, real regional councils made of local subsistence users have been formed, and their recommendations are given deference that ANILCA requires." He asked whether the state boards give deference to any local advisory boards, then indicated that in ten years of attending Board of Fisheries meetings, he hadn't seen any such deference. MR. NANENG stated, "More importantly, the federal managers, as well as many dedicated and foresighted state managers, have started to work with AVCP tribal governments to manage subsistence resources through co-management agreements. The question that Representative Williams asked about federal management, I'm sure one among you has ... filed a lawsuit challenging one of the biggest successes that we've had in terms of managing resources (indisc.) people. You can ask him about it, but I'm not going to mention a name." MR. NANENG continued, "If people weren't committed to protecting the subsistence resources, they wouldn't have gone into the co- management and cooperative agreements. ... For they were to protect the resource that they survive on. ... Because our people have been utilizing subsistence resource over the years. And have we depleted the resources?" MR. NANENG said the Congress and Alaska's Congressional delegation support tribal co-management, as demonstrated by the tribal co- management provisions of the Marine Mammal Protection Act. Many other nations, including Canada, are turning to tribal co- management as the best way to manage fish and wildlife. The AVCP believes that the Governor and the commissioner of the Department of Fish and Game support co-management. Mr. Naneng stated, "And I think that this legislature needs to stop ignoring the tribes and the Native people in management and catch up with the rest of the states and the world. And the legislature should endorse ... tribal-state co-management." He indicated that letters had been written by some state managers, who had said the only way they can manage resources is by working closely with the people who are direct subsistence users. MR. NANENG stated, "AVCP will not support any loss of federal oversight from that earlier provided in ANILCA. Alaska Supreme Court decisions provide no protection for customary and traditional subsistence practices or for the priority itself. The court defers almost without exception to any decisions made by the boards. The only protections subsistence users had from the Alaska Supreme Court, this legislature, the state boards, is the oversight ANILCA provides through the federal courts and the Secretary of the Interior and Agriculture. Like I stated, every time we've tried to make a decision that benefits the subsistence use, we've had to file a lawsuit to protect (indisc.)." MR. NANENG continued, "AVCP will not support any amendments to ANILCA unless amendments strengthen protection for Native subsistence uses and tribal management. AVCP stands by the recent Resolution and Guiding Principles of the Native Subsistence Summit, as well as the Roundtable Proclamation that declares that the right to forever live the Native way of life, to govern ourselves, to determine our own destiny, and to maintain our cultural existence are basic human rights. And I don't think any law can ever change that. ..." MR. NANENG stated, "The tribes did not break the deal that was struck in ANILCA; the state did. The state was the one that insisted on the rural preference. The Native people did not (indisc.). ANILCA was intended to protect the Native subsistence way of life, and Congress was prepared to enact a Native hunting and fishing right until the state protested and proposed a rural priority. Now, the legislature wants the tribes to compromise one of its most fundamental rights and legal protections, so that the state can regain subsistence management. AVCP will oppose any compromise or weakening of ANILCA." MR. NANENG continued, "Alaska Native tribes must be at the table in government-to-government discussions before AVCP will support any proposal by the Governor, the Congressional delegation or the legislature. AVCP is committed to work towards a solution, ... but the tribes have not been given any real opportunity in the process that has been used thus far by the Governor and the state legislature. Even in the most anti-Indian days of the 1800s, the treaties defining ... hunting and fishing rights were negotiated with the tribes." He suggested the attitudes of the state government system needs to change to recognize the Native people. He stated, "This legislature insists on ignoring a special political relationship that Alaska federally-recognized tribes have with the United States government. The subsistence issue will be resolved only when the state legislature accepts the government-to- government role of the tribes and understands that the Alaska Natives have a unique relationship to Alaska's fish and wildlife that deserves legal recognition." MR. NANENG concluded by responding to questions raised to previous testifiers. Regarding federal management, he said AVCP welcomes it right now because they are able to work with co-management. He referred to the migratory bird treaty and indicated it will recognize equal rights for Native people for subsistence uses. He also mentioned the Marine Mammal Protection Act. In addition, he referred to fisheries management and discussions of allocation by the Board of Fisheries. He stated, "As far as our people are concerned, it's not allocation; it seems to be discrimination. And I think that meaningful, comprehensive reports are the only things that we want to see, if we want to see return of management to Alaska, not to the State of Alaska." Number 206 CO-CHAIRMAN HUDSON pointed out that there had been no time limits imposed that day. However, he asked that testifiers keep comments pertinent to helping to resolve the subsistence issue. Although he was willing to hear comments relating to reasons a hearing wasn't held in Anchorage, this committee had nothing to do with that. He emphasized that they were seeking constructive input. He requested a copy of Mr. Naneng's testimony for the record. CO-CHAIRMAN HUDSON temporarily turned over chairmanship of the meeting to Representative Green. Number 225 ARTHUR LAKE, Tribal Administrator, Native Village of Kwigillingok, came forward to testify, saying his organization is not recognized by the state. He said, "I really don't know, and neither do you, what a specific definition of subsistence is. I live it; you don't. I really don't know how to explain to you what subsistence really means to me, because I can't. It is passed down from my father, from his father, and so on down/up the line. I could not, in my own words, find the words to express to you so that you understand what subsistence is." MR. LAKE continued, "The Native people, my people, have management systems that work, that are not recognized nor acknowledged by the present state management systems." He suggested the state's management system is an attempt to replicate Native customary and traditional systems, "because we do not take more than what we need, we do not waste, we do not disrespect the food that is made available to us." He said, "Our elders and their elders have taught us all these things, and they have had no need to write this down so that we understand. They are passed down to us." MR. LAKE pointed out that there are many different species of fish and game. He wonders at times how they can fully understand how to manage and ensure the survival of these species. Referring to the state constitution's sustained yield provision, he said, "But they don't practice that. Look at the fisheries. They say that the fish in Area M have no bearing on the fish on the Kuskokwim or the Koyukuk or anywhere else. ... How could you say that you are practicing or attempting to practice sustained yield ... on the species when you put boundaries that do not exist? ... If the fishing in the Kuskokwim is bad, it's an in-river fishery problem. If it's bad in Bristol Bay, it's Bristol Bay's problem. The fish don't know that. And we, of course, don't know that, because we have no ideas about boundaries except respecting others' hunting and fishing areas." MR. LAKE continued, "The state also is saying that they want to make a constitutional amendment to permit, but not require, subsistence priorities. ... I will be blunt. I have no faith in the state systems. I have been a tribal administrator for the Native Village of Kwigillingok for eight years. The state has done nothing to try to work with us. They have done everything to sever or not to recognize the relationship that should exist. ... I think it's time, at least for me, to speak bluntly, ... without holding things back, because they've ... been going on for so long ..., in the way the White men put it, like a broken record." MR. LAKE said the state doesn't recognize the tribal governments, and it has done a lot of things to hurt the Native people of Alaska, "stating that their constitution says `one people, one vote'". He said that does nothing to change colors or any customs and traditions that they have, and he believes it has done a lot to create divisiveness and animosity. He has heard the phrase, "We want to work together," many times by legislators. However, he believes it is hollow and meaningless because it is not practiced. He believes prejudice exists, even if not spoken out loud, including in the halls of the legislature. MR. LAKE stated, "If we are going to work together, or try to find solutions, then I think it's high time that the Alaska State Legislature put it in front of the people to vote, that they make some attempts ... to try to understand, in their own life. And I've heard it so much, over and over again, `I understand how you (indisc.).' ... That's to appease me and my people, I believe." MR. LAKE stated, "It is very difficult to live and work out there when we are not recognized ... as a government, because we are. Our government has existed before the incorporation of the State of Alaska, and it has been the only form of government that our people, in my village and my tribe, ... has embraced. And yet we are like something that does not exist. Here we are, in flesh and blood, trying to provide services to our people, to provide things for our people, to make life easier for them. Things that the State of Alaska is trying to do is for the citizens and yet won't recognize us as ... any form of anything. Complete disregard for our existence. And unless that happens, in my mind, a lot of the issues that exist today will not be resolved." MR. LAKE said, "Our way of life cannot be defined in words that I am speaking. You cannot change that through your rules and regulations and statutes. You cannot feed a hungry man with words. You cannot take his life away with words. It's not possible, I don't believe. If a man goes out and feeds his family, he has done that for centuries. He has done that as his father has told him, not only to feed his family but to the extended family and the community as well, in sharing that resource. As I was saying, we have management systems. And it is believed that ... if you play with or disrespect a resource, it's not going to be made available to you. And I believe this is exactly what we're doing, ... in dealing with this issue, because we already know what it is to go out and provide food ... for our families, for our extended families and to share with the other people in our village." MR. LAKE continued, "We don't need any written regulations because they've been passed down to us. ... Are we going to be forced to sit down and write these things? I don't believe so, because ... that would make our elders and others feel that we are not doing the right things, the way we should be doing. And yet we're in a lot of instances forced to do that. Our way of life cannot be changed. You cannot take away the man's ability to feed his family or his extended family or ... the others in the community by words that are written." MR. LAKE continued, "I have heard, and I believe, that these people that you are addressing, especially the Native people, will continue to provide food for their families, no matter what is written down, no matter how many times they have to go to jail because they are violating a regulation. They will continue to do that because there is no other way they know to feed their families, because it's available to them. It has been said that you utilize these resources when they become available, like the emperor geese, the Canada geese, the whitefish, the salmon, kings and others, the moose, the caribou, the mink, the otter, everything else. Utilize these resources when they become available to ensure that your family does not go hungry, to ensure that they have clothes to put on their backs." MR. LAKE concluded, "I would appreciate, myself, that the Alaska State Legislature take to heart the very existence of the Native people, the tribal governments of this state, so that we can begin to find ways to resolve these issues without those lines of ignorance or - how else could I put it? - without denying our existence. If we do that, then I believe that we have an opportunity to move forward and to find resolution, not only to this subsistence issue but to a lot of other issues." CO-CHAIRMAN HUDSON resumed chairing the hearing. Number 450 OWEN BEAVER came forward to testify. He referred to Co-Chairman Hudson's opening remarks and asked about federal management in Alaska. CO-CHAIRMAN HUDSON explained, "The concern that I have, and that I expressed in the beginning, was over the management of fisheries by a multi-layered federal management scheme, which, you know, whether we like it or dislike it, may conceivably come to pass if we don't take some action. And the hunting has already essentially, in most areas, particularly the federal areas, been assumed by the federal government. Now, we're confronted on October 1 by federal management of fish in navigable as well as non-navigable federal streams, and that could conceivably extend on out into the ocean. And my concern is that we find a solution, between the federal government, state government and the people of Alaska, that will provide for a broad-based management scheme." Number 543 MR. BEAVER asked what the difference is in how the state wants to run it. CO-CHAIRMAN HUDSON replied, "The state would have ... one manager, instead of four or five. Instead of having the [U.S.] Forest Service manage waters around the extended forest lands like the Tongass, and instead of having maybe the National Park Service execute management under their particular federal law, if we get back to state management, which this proposal is coming from, we will have a single system of management, and it will manage, for example, the Yukon River ... in a holistic sense, that is, the approaches from the ocean to the mouth of the river to the -- there's so many different kinds of fisheries, and it's complex. Obviously, if the federal government takes over the management on October 1, we do nothing, there will be complex and, I think, unsuccessful management scenarios that take place that could conceivably see the very stock that we all depend upon, for subsistence and commercial and whatever, diminish down to the same point that it was before statehood." CO-CHAIRMAN HUDSON continued, "Remember, before statehood, the federal management of our fisheries had salmon at about 25 million fish. We have, as a state management, been able to build that stock up throughout the state of Alaska, for several years, to in excess of 200 million. So, we've gone from 25 to 200 million salmon, which, I think, has ... prevented an awful lot of shortages. That's the only thing I was speaking to. But I don't want to try to ... lead your testimony or mislead your testimony." MR. OWEN asked a question that was indiscernible on tape, relating to the state and the Native people. CO-CHAIRMAN HUDSON replied, "The proposal that has been put together by the task force, the seven-member task force, does call for a management by the Department of Fish and Game ..., and it provides for an input or a review process and support process by advisory committees, which would be made up, and I think Mary Pete mentioned, it would be made up of members from here, for example, for the area, and the game and the fish in this neck of the woods. Am I answering your question?" MR. OWEN said no, then indicated his questions are from being himself, a Native from Alaska, not a White person. [Some of Mr. Owen's testimony was indiscernible on tape.] He is 66 years old and watched Alaska evolve from a territory into a state. This is the second time he has been before the legislature. He asked whether Co-Chairman Hudson is from Juneau. CO-CHAIRMAN HUDSON said yes. MR. OWEN said he was puzzled and asked, "When are you going to understand our way of life, Eskimo way of life?" He referred to the empty seats and indicated people are out doing subsistence activities. He mentioned Co-Chairman Hudson's question about how many people had read the Governor's task force proposal and said, "We didn't raise our hand. The only time I see the Governor is when he wants our votes." Mr. Owen said 25 years before, the land claims were written down, stating that aboriginal hunting and fishing rights were abolished. He mentioned extending that right in Washington, D.C., and in Juneau. MR. OWEN emphasized that it is different where he lives, where few people are employed. He discussed the White man's way of life versus the Native way of life, indicating White people save money they don't need at the time for future use. In contrast, his people only get what they need for food. He referred to territorial days and mentioned the concept of "only keep what you want." He then referred to 1959, statehood and federal law about closed seasons for hunting. He emphasized the importance of subsistence and asked Representative Dyson how long he'd been fishing in Bristol Bay. Number 722 REPRESENTATIVE DYSON said 21 years. MR. OWEN said he'd been fishing since 1965. He asked whether Representative Dyson had fished for a company like he himself had. REPRESENTATIVE DYSON said yes. MR. OWEN asked what company it was. REPRESENTATIVE DYSON said Snowpac. MR. OWEN asked whether Representative Dyson had thought about fish prices. REPRESENTATIVE DYSON replied that he thinks about that a lot. Although he doesn't like it, it has to do with the world market, also. MR. OWEN referred to processors. [Question cut off by end of tape.] TAPE 97-54, SIDE B Number 006 MR. OWEN mentioned expenses these days, especially this season. He referred to enforcement of state laws and to Juneau and Washington, D.C. He indicated that only with permanent work could there be an end to subsistence. He said, "We cannot sit down and starve." He concluded by emphasizing the importance of subsistence and the difference in lifestyles. Number 035 PETE JOHN, Native Village of Kwigillingok, testified in Yup'ik. Interpreter John Active stated: "He says he's going to ask a question. He said that the Natives, the Eskimos and the White people are not the same. "He starts out by saying that, as he said earlier, that we are not alike, the White people and the Natives, and the same with our lifestyles. They are not alike. We don't live in the same way. "He said that ... including our lifestyles not being alike, our languages, we can't understand one another. And the same with our subsistence lifestyle, because you're not in the subsistence mode, you don't understand subsistence (indisc.). "He said that our ancestors have taught us how to live the subsistence lifestyle. "... Also, ... as our ancestors have taught us, we have always tried to provide for our families, and ways that we did was hunting furs and selling those and using the money to provide for our families' clothing and food. "He says since subsistence has been around for a very long time, it seems the state is ... trying to make it hard for the people who live the subsistence lifestyle ... to continue that. The state is passing laws opening and closing seasons; that makes it hard for the subsistence people ... who are trying to provide for their families, by opening and closing seasons when they're trying to (indisc.) this lifestyle. "He says many of the reasons why, (indisc.) of the other people that were here before him, spoke before him, had said them. But he wanted to ask, he starts off by saying people have ... come to them and said that they want to help them resolve this subsistence issue. He wants to make sure that the Natives, as well as the ... other people here in Alaska, work together to reach their goals, so that both ... sides are satisfied in the end. "He says the subsistence lifestyle will never end and that it will be passed on to generations to come, (indisc.--sneezing) lifestyle. "He said that although he couldn't speak English, he hoped that you understood what he said, and he's glad to be here." Number 165 CO-CHAIRMAN HUDSON thanked Mr. John and expressed appreciation for his comments. He called on Joe Felix of Toksook Bay and Carl Berger of Bethel, but neither was present. Number 185 CHRIS COOKE came forward to testify. He thanked the committee for coming to Bethel, where he lives. He emphasized how important it is that decision-makers hear from those most directly affected, such as those they'd heard from that day who take part in subsistence and have grown up in that tradition and continue to follow it. Mr. Cooke said he grew up in Ohio. Until coming here after college and law school, he had no idea what subsistence was all about. "But after I got out of school, I started my education and came to Alaska almost 30 years ago, first in Kotzebue and then Nome, and for over the last 25 years living here in Bethel," he said. "And I've come to learn a great deal about subsistence, mainly from my wife and her family and all the people of this area. I have participated in ... subsistence fishing, operating a fish camp - not operating but living in one, using one, seeing how that's done and seeing how, on a daily basis, how people live their relationship to the land or resources that the land and waters provide." MR. COOKE explained that subsistence is the dominant activity of people in that region. It provides food, work and self- sufficiency. It is essential and is the cornerstone of the economic system, as well as having traditional and cultural importance. He stated the belief that people like himself who are not originally from the area but who live there respect and value subsistence; they are not of a different mind than Native people who talk about its importance. "It's not a label or a shorthand reference for some sort of special treatment or privilege that people want," he stated. "I think it's understood and valued as something that is really part of the essence, part of the being of people who live here, our regional inhabitants, and that ... it's not a game and it's not a ploy or an artifice asking for some special favors or privileges. ... It's something that comes from the soul." MR. COOKE continued, "And I think when it comes to specific proposals like the constitutional amendment, preserving the protections of ANILCA, ... that there's a whole community of people in rural Alaska who are not Natives and who perhaps don't participate directly in subsistence but who do support the same outcome that people were talking about here today: to keep the ANILCA protections, to keep the subsistence priority, to make it a requirement of the state constitution that there be a subsistence priority. I think that this is ... one of the reasons I wanted to speak, ... was because I wanted your committee to understand that this is not just one specific group of people, one ethnic group, that supports this objective, but these values are shared and respected and advocated ... by others ... who are not originally from here, as well." MR. COOKE concluded, "But of course, I hope that in addition to valuing and respecting subsistence that fish and game, as someone mentioned earlier, can also be managed in such a way that all needs and (indisc.) of all users can be met. But if there is a shortage, I believe, and I think a lot of other people, the vast majority of people in this area believe, that there should be a subsistence priority for those people for whom subsistence is not just a choice, not just a discretionary thing that they can do or can choose not to do, that it is much more important than that, and that ... if someone has to have their activities limited in hunting and fishing, that they should first be other users, not subsistence users. There should be a subsistence priority." Number 281 SENATOR HOFFMAN referred to the language of the constitutional amendment. He asked, "You said that there should be a preference; and how strongly do you feel that it `shall' be a preference or it `may' be a preference in the constitution?" MR. COOKE replied, "I agree with what the first speaker, Tom Warner, said, that ... using `may' instead of `shall' is not strong enough, that it should be mandatory. ... I think people, you know, a lot of people, like the people we've heard from this morning, feel that their way of life and maybe ... their culture is under attack. I think that has a lot to do with people's mental image, ... their feeling of self-worth, their esteem. ... If the voters of the state endorse a constitutional amendment ... that says there shall be a priority, it may not change the number of fish or moose or whatever that people harvest, but I think it will make people feel a lot more confident and secure that others in Alaska truly do respect and value their chosen way of life." Number 304 JOHN ABRAHAM testified at length in Yup'ik. Following completion of Mr. Abraham's testimony, interpreter Trim Nick stated: "This is John Abraham from Toksook Bay. And initially he mentioned that he ... does not know you committee members personally, except for Ivan. He welcomes you here as we deliberate over the subsistence dilemma. He stated that we, as a people, although we use these resources as a form of sustenance, as a lifestyle for subsistence, the subsistence lifestyle, we cannot fabricate or make these resources available to us, as our ... counterparts in the Western world do. We cannot entice or allow these resources to come to us by telling them ... to do so. "Repeating what the previous speaker, Billy McCann, said, he said these resources are provided to us by our Creator, and they are provided as needed. Also, reflecting on ... the resources that have been dealt with in the past, like the caribou, as Mr. McCann had mentioned, there was a lot of bickering and fighting over its management, and in time that resource had disappeared. Mr. Abraham stated that this will be the case with other fish and game, with caribou and moose. If we are divisive in its management, they will eventually no longer be here, and their numbers will diminish if we ... fight over them or over their management. "He also mentioned board members under the state system that ... are selected ... to make these decisions and laws on openings of ... hunting and fishing in our state lands. He would like to question these people, whether they could make or fabricate ... these resources available ... to the people that use them, and if they would be able to entice them to come to these areas when ... they're needed, which basically is saying that this is impossible. He said he likes to speak in these meetings, in these forums, and was getting a little frustrated when his name wasn't being called. And he would like to thank you for this opportunity to speak." Number 432 MR. ABRAHAM again spoke at length in Yup'ik, following which the interpreter stated: "He just wanted to add that as far as the harvesting of resources, Native people consider the year, or what's needed within the year, in the harvest. As an example, the walrus, when it's harvested in the spring, is used in the whole, down to the only thing that's (indisc.--coughing) is the bones or the bone structure. He also mentioned the fisheries and the difference between the subsistence use and the sports fishery. He's appalled at how sports fishermen can take a fish and then release it for reasons, whatever it may be, whether it's too small or too old. He said he was appalled a few years ago when, in the coastal area in -- for, I guess, maybe the commercial fishery, when the fish processors had discarded fish that otherwise we, as a people, ... would not do. You know, he said he may not have presented in a clear way what he wanted to speak, but thanks for the opportunity." Number 500 JOHN P. JONES came forward to testify, saying although he'd been a professional, he was speaking for himself. He spoke about forefathers and the guiding principle that the government is by, for and of the people. He referred to the Native Subsistence Summit, saying he'd really not been part of it, and he mentioned the resolution that resulted (Native Subsistence Summit Resolution 97-01, dated August 28, 1997). MR. JONES stated, "And I think that some of the people in the villages would feel the same way as I do, because these resolutions were drafted by what we call the ... Alaska Federation of Natives, the corporations; and these are the very people that are presenting us with the problem today, when back in 1971, had they not put in a stipulation into Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act, that our aboriginal and subsistence rights were abolished." MR. JONES continued, "But before I get on, I feel a little nervous being in front of you with Mr. Somerville in presence, because back in 1978, there was an effort to repeal subsistence, and it was a referendum put in before us, the voters of the state of Alaska, and bless their hearts, they voted it down. But getting back to the resolution that came out of the Native Subsistence Summit in Anchorage, I have some problems with it, and those are the kind of guiding principles that I don't want the state legislature to go on. First is the customary and traditional use. That is in danger for interpretation." Originally from Chevak, he said the things he hunts for there are completely different from what he hunts in the Bethel area. He asked, "But if I would choose to, will I be able to go after any kind of game around here under those customary and traditional uses?" MR. JONES said there is no really current subsistence impasse for Native people in the villages. The Native impasse is between the state and a federal law that lets them hunt. He thanked his late brother-in-law for having the foresight to put that into ANILCA. He stated, "And the impasse is none of ours, the subsistence hunters or gatherers. It's between the State of Alaska, whose constitution (indisc.) the law of the land. So, that impasse is probably coming from one of the -- I don't know. The people that originally had ... the same thoughts when they went down to negotiate for us on our land claims there probably shouldn't be the ones to negotiate ... the subsistence." MR. JONES continued, "And then the other thing is that the delegates to the Native subsistence committee expressed their appreciation for the hard work and dedication of Governor Knowles and other members of this Governor's task force. I don't know how any Native can really appreciate what ... the Governor's task force is trying to propose. I, for one, don't. And I think there is a lot of things that ... the task force is suggesting that the state comes up with that ... you should take with a grain of salt. And you say we have ... a Native representative on there. I (indisc.), probably the same guy that went to Washington, D.C., back in '71. And he doesn't know anything about being hungry or having any money problems, since 1971 to this day, as some of those people in the villages are having. They don't know what's going to happen with welfare reform. What about [if] the fish don't return? What about if we don't get ... the birds or the other game?" MR. JONES continued, "... Like the speakers before me, it's not for any government to say that, you know, there's going to be game or fish there. We don't know that. We know for sure there's going to be welfare reform. We know for sure you're going to be making laws that will affect our way of life. We don't understand why you're mingling in our lifestyle. We don't. We don't do that to you. And then the other thing, too, is that the resolution says that ... they appreciate the members of the Alaska Congressional delegation and their work to try to resolve the impasse. I don't appreciate it. I don't appreciate them amending ANILCA to wipe us out. No, I don't, what they were thinking over there. Or if they realized ... what kind of resolutions they are passing? That's not a kind of resolution you will see from the villages." Mr. Jones referred to item 6 of the Native Subsistence Summit resolution, which states, "Any resolution negotiated by the representatives must be ratified by a full and informed consent by the tribal organizations and other organizations." TAPE 97-55, SIDE A Number 001 MR. JONES responded to suggestions that this is a complex issue by saying, "I don't know what's so complex about it. Everybody's trying to figure out what subsistence is. Everybody missed the ballpark on subsistence, what it is and what it stands for. It's something that is kind of religious to us, something that is lost now, with the present hunter, where you used to take great respect to the spirit of the animals that you killed. ... And it's a religious ceremony. You want the spirit of that animal to come back to you. You give thanks to it: `Now go and come back to me again someday.'" MR. JONES stated that the experience is not just putting food on a table. For example, he is not young, as he used to be, and he has seen a few changes in his life. "And I cannot go without having some of the traditional food in a year," he said. "If I miss having my stink fish heads for a whole year, for that year, I know I will have missed something. My system will miss it. Likewise, if you go up there to our villages and stay there maybe ... for about a week, that McDonald's hamburger will taste real good. So, whatever you do or what guiding principles you're trying to look at, I hope you will listen to the people that are trying to speak from their hearts. And like the previous speakers ... in front of me, we've been speaking to you over and over again for the last 26 years." He emphasized that there are two lifestyles in Alaska, and some people need to be convinced of that. He asked, "If you want to have your own ways, why don't we divide this state in two? Just put a circle around Fairbanks and Anchorage and make that one state, and the rest of it, I think we'll be able to survive just (indisc.)." Number 030 JOAN HAMILTON came forward to testify, noting that she was the first woman to do so that day. She directs a demonstration project for outpatient treatment with the Yukon-Kuskokwim Health Corporation (YKHC), funded by the Center for Substance Abuse Treatment (CSAT). They use traditional activities to treat alcohol and drug abuse in Native villages. "We are a research project," she added. Ms. Hamilton read from a written statement, with changes: "You heard eloquent testimonies of how subsistence is to our lives in rural Alaska. The State of Alaska has historically had adversarial and condescending, I'm sorry to say, relationships with rural Alaska Natives. And this pains me to say this. I've had high hopes with the election of Governor Knowles, but not much has changed. Our experience under the federal management recognizes more rural Alaskans as being able to be intimately involved in the decision-making process. "My work is impacted by use or non-use of subsistence. The patients and their families are directly influenced by subsistence. The majority of the patients that we have have fragmented identities. In other words, the depression and confusion is accentuated, made worse, by questions about who they are. We have learned that reintroducing traditional history and life is critical to successful completion of treatment for chemical abuse with the three villages that we work with. "Subsistence is our life; it is our economy. We absolutely need subsistence for our physical and spiritual survival, you know, like Representative Joule alluded to this morning. Subsistence provides the essential nurturing needs for our families. It is a time when families work together in a positive task of gathering food for the body and soul. I'll give you an example of how we use Yup'ik and Cup'ik subsistence activities in our treatment. For instance, fishing. It provides for skill building. It's relapse prevention, we've learned. It reduces stress because you are physically involved in something intensive, physically intensive. And it's recreational as well. And it provides us with `time out' from the everyday life that we lead the rest of the year. "It develops interpersonal relationships between families and relatives. And there's a great feeling of self-worth that the families get when they assist with provision of the food. And we find that in our counseling sessions that it's a good way to develop the trust, build the trust between the patient and the counselor, especially during early stages of treatment. Instead of taking them in an office like this and talking to them one-on-one, we find that it helps us succeed better when the counselor takes you out hunting or berry-picking. And the trust is built in that process. "The subsistence concerns compound stresses of welfare reform with no jobs or job opportunities in the villages. Unless rural preference is maintained, there will be - and it's been proven over and over again - increases in abusive drinking, spousal, elder and child abuse, [with] the resultant strain ... on the work load of the State of Alaska social services, educational, judicial and the correctional systems. ... If we don't have our life in subsistence, I think you will see a greater increase in the strains of your budgets that are already suffering. The majority of cash- paying jobs in the villages are seasonal. Therefore, loss of subsistence to rural Alaska has an acute and immediate effect on our total well-being." Number 095 MS. HAMILTON concluded, "The decision ... must pay diligent attention to the preservation of human dignity. And I see subsistence as equating to human dignity in our area. We may not live in our village of origin, like Mr. Jones referred to; we ... may not live there for over 100 years. But we continue to identify ourselves with our villages, and our villages are synonymous with subsistence. The villages provide us a sense of identity. The villages provide us a sense of connection to our roots. They provide us a sense of security. And I speak of this because I know it personally. I haven't been in my village of origin since I was 11 years old, when I was sent off to boarding school. And today I still consider myself from that village. My son has only visited; he's 19 and in college now. He's visited only a few times a year, and he still identifies himself as being from Chevak. So, that's how critical our villages are. All of us benefit from healthier status of Alaskan residents. For acting for a healthier rural and urban Alaska, we need to - and listen to this - we need to maintain rural, roadless preference for subsistence. Quyana. Thank you very much." Number 111 REPRESENTATIVE NICHOLIA responded by relating how getting fish with her brother provides stress relief and strengthens their relationship with each other and with their mother. In addition, talks while berry-picking strengthen her relationship with her sisters. She thanked Ms. Hamilton for being there. Number 122 JOHN WHITE came forward to testify, thanking the committee for coming to Bethel and saying their presence demonstrates their keen interest and commitment, hopefully, to resolving the problem. He specified that he was speaking for himself, as a "20-plus-year resident of Western Alaska." He provided some background, saying he'd fished commercially for salmon on the Kuskokwim River and in Kuskokwim Bay, and he'd sport fished and hunted in that region since he first lived there. A past member of the Lower Kuskokwim Advisory Committee, he'd been on then-Governor Cooper's Board of Fisheries review task force in 1986. He was chairman of the Western Alaskan Salmon Coalition, which was committed to ending high-seas interception of Western Alaskan salmon stocks in the 1980s. He was also co-chair of the Kuskokwim River Salmon Management working group for numerous years; that was a cooperative management organization with the State of Alaska which determined openings and closures of commercial fisheries in the Kuskokwim River. Currently, he is president of the Salmon Research Foundation, which is associated with the North Pacific Fisheries Management Council (NPFMC) and has the purpose of researching ways to avoid bycatch relating to salmon in the Bering Sea outside state waters. Furthermore, he is a member and current chairman of the Board of Fisheries. DR. WHITE again specified that he was speaking personally. He pointed out that questions and comments of the Board of Fisheries had been forwarded to the task force and were available as a matter of public record. DR. WHITE expressed concern that there is an "unholy war" in Alaska when it comes to natural resources. He stated, "You've heard many eloquent spokesmen before me say that resources disappear when people quarrel over them. We're divided, and we're quarreling. And I sit in the seat that hears the results of that quarreling all the time. We need to find a middle ground, and that middle ground (indisc.) to go forward, and the members of this congregation, of this church - which is the `outside,' in the natural world all of us as Alaskans cherish so much - the parishioners in that church need to come together and find a common ground. You people are the deacons in that church, and you have a lot to do with what happens in that church and what happens to its parishioners. They're divided ... and they're fighting. And unless we find a middle ground to bring people back together, that church will fall and will be desecrated." DR. WHITE continued, "So, I look to you to, hopefully, see that the task force's proposal, in my judgment, is a middle ground. People have stepped forward. They've provided leadership. They've been bold. They've compromised with one another." Dr. White said he believes the most important item in the current task force recommendation is the single-management system. As someone who has sat on the board and participated in the regulatory processes of the NPFMC and the state system, he doesn't believe Alaska's resources onshore, within three miles of the state water, and in inland rivers, can sustain the dual-management system. The fragmentation will create greater expense and a divided regulatory system. Research and regulatory authorities will be fragmented. There won't be good information for making decisions, and there isn't even good enough information now to make good decisions. The duplicative efforts will not benefit Alaskans as federal taxpayers. Dr. White said, "We're going to have a worse system, and the end result is that there's going to be less natural resources for all harvesters." DR. WHITE suggested Alaska's commercial fishing industry doesn't need more confusion or "muddlement" in its ability to rise above the crisis it is experiencing. "If federal management comes in and is not sensitive to the needs of that industry, it will experience another crippling blow," he stated. "That concerns me as an individual and as an individual commercial harvester." Number 221 DR. WHITE continued, "As an in-river user of the resources in Western Alaska, the region I'm from right now is experiencing a paucity of salmon resources. We don't have the fish we used to. And for this body's information, this river system is a perfect example of what I'm talking about. We don't have the resources, in my judgment right now, and as far as research goes, to figure out a way out of the problem that we're in." He mentioned problems with piling another regulatory system on top of this, with additional research and duplicative efforts. Number 237 DR. WHITE referred to other strengths of the task force proposal and mentioned his participation on then-Governor Cooper's Board of Fisheries task force review. He explained that local management is important for two reasons. It bonds people to the system better; they feel more empowered in how they participate at the regional level. In addition, the work load of the Board of Fisheries is great, and it would be a way to get a more efficient Board of Fisheries process in place. As someone who has participated in the advisory committee system, he believes it is "in the state's strength" and that people will perceive more merit in the system if they have more local control. He concluded by saying as an individual Alaskan, he wants to see matter come to a vote. He hopes that doing so will be a start in resolving the divisiveness between rural and urban Alaskans. Number 262 SENATOR HOFFMAN referred to the constitutional amendment and whether the preference shall be required or may be provided. He said the overwhelming testimony that day was that people need the state to show a good-faith effort and to place the word "shall" in the constitution. Noting that the task force has presented it as permissive language, Senator Hoffman asked what Dr. White believes should be in the constitution. Number 283 DR. WHITE said as an individual, a rural resident and a student of the history for 100 years, one reason for some of the language in ANILCA is the "good protection of all rural residents for harvest rights." Again as an individual, he believes the word "shall" is the one that should be used. Number 300 FRANK CHARLES came forward to testify, also stating his name as "Plopeluk." He is a lifelong resident of the Yukon-Kuskokwim delta. His father was originally from Nelson Island, and his mother was from the tundra area. Mr. Charles said he is fortunate in that respect. He has friends and family, and he has an opportunity to taste and have part of the bounty that this land provides. Although he could provide a whole litany of credentials and titles relating to fisheries and resource work that he'd done for years, he said that isn't important. He stated, "What I want you to understand is, is that I'm first and foremost a subsistence hunter and fisher." MR. CHARLES noted that he co-chairs a new working group in the Kuskokwim, who are fed up and tired of dealing with these issues. He said there is a great deal of distrust and unease about the current system. He indicated that even if the legislature's attempts to resolve this come from the heart, as he would hope, they feel uneasy, given the past practices and history of the state, especially regarding state management. MR. CHARLES emphasized that they are a very spiritually oriented people. He stated, "Our main purpose in life is just to live as we've been taught and to carry that life on. Part of it just happens to be an essential part, not the cornerstone, not the central aspect, this living from the land, what you term `subsistence.' And I, like Art Lake and many others, and Willie Kasayulie, are still trying to mull that one over. I cannot describe that to you. Hopefully, by pointing out in perspective what subsistence means to me, in relation to our efforts to `grow Inyooee,' which is the way of the human being, subsistence is a very strong part of that, (indisc.)." MR. CHARLES emphasized that if they "sever that tie and compromise it and mediate it and talk it to death, as has been happening and will likely continue for quite some time to come," they were cutting off a very important part of his life relating to his identity, self-esteem, his place in the world, and being able to function and move in a healthy and vital way, "which is what I'm sure you each, in your ... families and communities that you come from, are also striving to achieve." He asked legislators to keep that in mind, first and foremost, "if you want a framework by which you can value your thoughts and your actions," rather than having the framework defined by "shall" or "may" or other legal aspects. MR. CHARLES said he finds it ironic that he lives in the midst of a "refuge," which is by definition a safe haven for flora and fauna, ideally with clean water and air. However, he does not feel safe or that he lives in a haven. He explained, "I used to think, as many people here, that we were safe from the outside world, that we were so isolated and removed, that what happened in Washington, D.C., or for that matter, Juneau, or in Anchorage, would not affect us. And unfortunately it has, in many adversarial ways. We are forced to be adversarial. We are also forced to rush, rush, rush." MR. CHARLES asked legislators to realize they are dealing with his identity, which he hopes his four children will relate to and hold dear. He mentioned customary and traditional use. He explained that they share food out of love and caring, that feeding the body physically also feeds the spirit and soul. He restated that they are a spiritual people and said, "Look how willingly we embraced Western Christianity and how we've molded it to our understanding of your Russian Orthodox, Catholic, Protestant, (Indisc.) Church, and a myriad of other religions that are out there. And this is a holy war to me, in that respect. And I would hope that we do so with caring and compassion, especially of others, as many of my elders teach me and tell me and continually remind me, and as they've done this morning and today, that we recognize our differences and respect them, ... as I do yours." MR. CHARLES continued, "Unfortunately, the past history and practice of the State of Alaska has not at all been conducive to this concept, with respect to the Area M issue, as an example. It's placed us in the position of fighting amongst each other and fighting amongst our own, even. I don't see any clear resolution to this, except if you want constructive input." Number 411 MR. CHARLES stated, "Chairman Hudson, I believe that the best protections we can have now is to have the federal government step in, because they recognize our basic Alaska human right, a person's human right, to subsist and live in a way that most defines the (indisc.) expression we want of our experience here on earth. State management has been `marginalizing' us for time and time again." He said he could cite numerous examples, but they are meaningless, "considering where we're at now." He stated, "It grieves me that we again find ourselves in, as I see it, an adversarial role." MR. CHARLES continued, "The position of the Native community when the summit was convened and concluded, I believe, is not thoroughly thought-out, although there are various good concepts and intents and principles that help to define me. But that's not all of it. I don't care to be defined, just as you do, and I'm sure you don't want your children to be defined that way, in so many words. I want to be defined by my actions, as you (indisc.). Your actions go so far; and I don't mean you specifically, but the state has demonstrated that there is no deference to this notion of sustained yield, much less protecting not my right but my privilege and my need to live and to have a higher sense of self-esteem." MR. CHARLES said the Native people are continually asked to deal with issues. This is one of many, including welfare reform, sovereignty issues, building an economy, and protecting and building the fisheries. Many of these issues polarize people. He stated, "We in the Y-K delta, I understand, are at or about the same population levels as prior to the great epidemics and deaths ... earlier this century. Even then, we do not have the resources, and time, money and people or experience to deal with these things adequately. I hear time and time again (indisc.) thing, the sole thing, that we cannot be attentive and give the kind of time and deference and careful thought and counsel that our elders taught us to do in order to have a viable, workable position that we could surely feel good about. I feel grieved that I don't feel good about this whole process. Unless you tell me otherwise, by an ironclad guarantee, through whatever mechanisms you have, my position is ... that in the midst of our (indisc.) here on Y-K delta, that we look to federal management." MR. CHARLES concluded with a Yup'ik farewell, "beuga." He told how for a long time, like many beginning to lose their identity, he'd thought it meant good-bye, see you later, or "catch you again." He stated, "But in the old way, it asks you, because you share with me, we experienced together, we understand, we try to struggle through life together, it means, `stay as you are' or `continue to be.' In this case, I don't say `beuga' to you. I say, `Please, set aside all the stuff that stands between you and I, as we try to achieve it up here, and recognize our needs to live out here in subsistence." He thanked the committee, "quyana." Number 493 CO-CHAIRMAN HUDSON expressed the hope that committee members could take back to other legislators some of the feeling they were getting about what subsistence means to the people of the region. He explained that in Alaska's government system, the process requires that they try to somehow transfer testifiers' thoughts to others, who will have to make a collective decision. He said, "And I want you to know that, and I want everybody else that's testified to know, that it's important that you're here, not that we are going to absolutely be able to do everything that you want us to do, but we will better understand what these issues, that are vital to your life and your health and your family and your existence, it's important for us to know that and to feel that. And while we can take these testimonies in Juneau and we can take them from Anchorage or Washington, D.C., we really need to look you in the face and hear you speak from your heart, and I do appreciate (indisc.)." REPRESENTATIVE WILLIAMS asked how many times the federal government has come to Bethel, Alaska or the current committee. Number 545 MR. CHARLES said, "I, unlike the chairman - he mentioned the past practice and history of federal management - do not believe that we'll be placed in the same box, as was pointed out by somebody earlier. These are changing times. The federal government was managing fish and game resources in a very different time. Fortunately, we have a great deal of awareness and education on what the (indisc.) and managers, about where we are. With respect to (indisc.) so far, our experience thus far in the delta has been respective, cooperative management programs, co-management programs which are (indisc.) moving towards co-management programs, which is my ideal. It's been very positive, Representative Williams." MR. CHARLES continued, "I'm not certain that when federal management steps in, given the questions about commercial uses, for instance, which for me, commercial fishing out here, unfortunately, doesn't give us anything more than an opportunity to go out and subsist for (indisc.), I'm not certain that the federal management will give me that kind of guarantee. But at least what it will do is to further guarantee that the fish and game will continue to return so we can at least subsist, because that's what (indisc.) to the land." Number 568 REPRESENTATIVE GREEN said, "We're on the horns of the dilemma, and I would covet your input on this: ... Wouldn't an area that would be subject to a subsistence preference, that has non-Native people, such as we've heard from Mr. Cooke and from John White, would they, should they, be entitled to a subsistence preference, when what I've heard, in addition to need, is a, as you indicated, nearly a spiritual aspect to this that may not carry over from the Native to the non-Native? And the other question is that what about a sister or a brother who is of the same culture, who moves to a nonsubsistence area and ... may have need? Would they be, then, thrown out of this concept? And so, these are many of the questions that we're trying to weigh, and we would covet your input ...." MR. CHARLES replied, "I recall the state going through the exercise, through the joint boards of fish and game at the time, that there was an uncertainty about how things were going to relate, and (indisc.) that interpretation at the time, when we attempted to create nonsubsistence use areas, of which Bethel is probably going to be thrown in there. So, we'll call it Ketchikan and a number of other communities. And, in fact, that might have been the first time that the Native community really felt beyond afraid. They knew encroachment (indisc.) Native way was happening." MR. CHARLES continued, "In respect to your question directly, I believe that anybody who needs to fish and hunt should. I'm not saying shut it down, (indisc.) exclusivity, because we're all people. That's what I would have thought (indisc.) trying to understand. And when people need to eat, we speak of a great hunger. And ... it covers everything else, and everything else becomes meaningless when you are hungry, you see your children and others. I would hope that there would be some mechanism - I can't think of a specific - that could allow that, because I embrace people for who they are and what they are, especially when they make an attempt, as we do, to continue to see other things and what we do now." MR. CHARLES continued, "I would hope that we don't do what we did before and designate the nonsubsistence use areas, because I believe those discussions were very stilting. Fortunately, as I said before, we have a greater awareness and education. If nothing else, this conflict has ... raised the level of awareness, so that a constructive input -- once we're given ... an opportunity to think about it. This is all very new to a lot of us; I still don't understand a lot of it. But once we're given the opportunity to think about it and continue to discuss and counsel amongst ourselves and with you and your constituency, even, I'm sure we can come to a workable solution. I guess the message is: Don't rush." CO-CHAIRMAN HUDSON responded, "Believe you me, we're not rushing. We've been at this for years." He announced that they needed to take a lunch break and afterwards would hear from the villages. REPRESENTATIVE DYSON referred to the track record of federal management in Washington state, Oregon and elsewhere, as well as what it was like in Alaska before statehood. He pointed out that the commercial fishery in Alaska was doing poorly then. He asked, "What gives you confidence that the federal management will preserve the health of the wild stock in light of that record?" [Beginning of reply cut off by tape change.] TAPE 97-55, SIDE B Number 006 MR. CHARLES said he hated to put it in those terms, but he was looking to the lesser of two evils. REPRESENTATIVE DYSON said his question had related to performance and the health of the wild stock. He stated his belief that the federal management prior to statehood was terrible. MR. CHARLES replied, "In Washington and Oregon, the kind of management program they have ... there is very different than we have here. We have a fully engaged people, because subsistence and living off of the land is so important to us. And Washington and Oregon are probably where Alaska may be ... 100 years from now. Right now, we have the majority of people, living out here, living off the land. We're not engaged in an industrial economy and that kind of thing out there. Performance-wise, I think the federal government can do a much better job of assuring sustained yield and ensuring the health and vitality of (indisc.)." REPRESENTATIVE DYSON asked whether Mr. Charles could cite any examples where they'd done that. MR. CHARLES asked, "Yes, with respect to this area, which is where I have better experience than others?" REPRESENTATIVE DYSON said, "Anywhere in North America." MR. CHARLES replied, "Anywhere in North America. Well, I've studied those. I have a conceptual idea. But as far as practice and application, I understand with respect to marine mammals we're getting a commission together. We take the example of folks up in Kotzebue and Inupiat country, our brothers and sisters up north. They've demonstrated to us that we can actually have a say in management. Most importantly, it's to allow us to ensure that these marine mammals maintain themselves in perpetuity at a level at which we cannot just enjoy them for what they are but as people to live on them." REPRESENTATIVE DYSON indicated he'd talk with Mr. Charles about it later. CO-CHAIRMAN HUDSON called a recess for lunch at 1:05 p.m., saying he would return at 1:30 p.m. for the testimony via teleconference. [The tape machine was not turned off during most of the break.] Number 207 CO-CHAIRMAN HUDSON called the meeting back to order. He advised members that from 1:30 p.m. until 3 p.m., there would be call-in testimony from the villages. (Some testimony was indiscernible on tape because of poor sound quality. In addition, there was extraneous noise at the hearing site, including simultaneous voices.) Number 271 WILLIE KASAYULIE, Tribal Services Director, Akiachak Native Community, Akiachak Indian Reorganization Act (IRA) Council, testified via teleconference from Akiachak. He read from a prepared statement: "On behalf of the federally recognized tribe of Akiachak Native Community and the Tribal Council, I am submitting my comments to the Alaska House Resources Committee regarding the way of life of the Yupiaq of my village, more commonly referred to by the governments as subsistence. "The leadership of the Akiachak Native Community, President George Peter, is unable to be present to bring forth the views of the tribe, as they are conducting subsistence activities with the majority of the men from the Kuskokwim villages. "For the record, my name is Willie Kasayulie, serving as the Tribal Services Director for Akiachak Native Community since September of 1996. "The issue of subsistence is ... nothing new to the indigenous peoples of Alaska. We continue to exercise the taking of the renewable resources from Mother Earth to sustain ourselves as well as our families since time immemorial. Our traditional laws, which are handed down by word of mouth, still govern us as to know when to hunt, gather and fish. Our traditional laws on subsistence conflict with westernized laws. That is why our people are cited, their hunting tools confiscated, and in some cases incarcerated for trying to gather subsistence food for our families. "In preparation for AVCP's one-day meeting on August 25th and the statewide Subsistence Summit on August 26-28 in Anchorage, the Akiachak Native Community held a joint session of the tribe, the village corporations and village elders to review and discuss several subsistence proposals that were being distributed across the state for comment. "The Akiachak Native Community arrived at its own subsistence positions that were to be presented to both AVCP and the statewide meeting. The tribe's positions were articulated to Governor Knowles by vice chairman of the tribe, Jackson Lomack, at the Bethel meeting, and I presented our views during the first day session of the Subsistence Summit in Anchorage's Performing Arts Center. "The Akiachak Native Community recognizes the fact that all eligible voters participate in the statewide and national elections to elect our representatives. Nevertheless, whenever issues of self-determination of the tribal community are addressed, the State of Alaska and several members of the Congressional delegation have always opposed the desires of the tribal community, thus denying our inherent rights to govern ourselves. "Akiachak Limited, the ANCSA village corporation, represented Akiachak residents at the subsistence round table forum sponsored by RurAL CAP in Anchorage on February 15 through 17, 1997, which came up with a draft proclamation proclaiming that subsistence is a basic human right and the need for the Alaska tribes to be recognized by the State of Alaska as legitimate governments. These indigenous governments predate the formation and adoption of the United States and State of Alaska Constitutions. "The Akiachak Native Community adopted Resolution 97-06-02 on July 10, 1997, [at the] meeting of the IRA council supporting the proclamation. Based on that context, the joint session of the local subsistence meeting on August 18, 1997, embraced the draft proclamation as the position of the Akiachak Native Community, including the opposition to the Governor's task force proposal and the Murkowski/Young proposal. "The community opposed the state and federal positions because they dilute and/or eliminate the intention of Title VIII of ANILCA. The participants recognized the fact that the present state system needs to be changed, `along the similar system the federal subsistence board has their program set up.' The community feels insulted by the state's proposal of setting up an advisory subsistence committee to the boards of fish and game without any real powers. In light of the state's executive and legislative branches opposing the `Indian country' issue, the Akiachak Native Community cannot and will not support any proposed solution to the subsistence issue at this time. We are not afraid of the federal government's intention to take over the management of the subsistence resources on October 1st, as they have been more responsive to the needs and desires of the Alaska tribes. The community elders eloquently reminded us that the younger generation are beginning to forget how ... to traditionally care for the subsistence resources we bring home to our families. The Yupiit School District has begun to draft cultural curriculum that covers a wide variety of the Yupiaq ways of life, including the methods and means of traditional handling of the renewable resources we continue to depend upon from the lands, waters and air. The methods and means of handling the subsistence resources should be mandated by the Alaska Department of Education in all Alaska schools. Our elders are available to provide the professional advice in the development of such curricula. "The elders of the community also advised the participants to continue to exercise the taking of the wild game for traditional feasts and funerals despite westernized laws outlawing ... taking game during closed seasons. Whatever ... proposals to the subsistence issue are developed, taking of game for such activities needs to be included. This would solve the unnecessary confiscation of the resources and tools of the individuals, as well as incarceration of people that take game out of season to respect the deceased member of the tribe. "As a member of AVCP, the Akiachak Native Community also recommends the AVCP to address regional subsistence issues that impact all of the tribal villages. If subsistence is such an important basic human right, then AVCP needs to take a strong stand on the sports fishing and hunting activities, including rafting in the tributaries of the Kuskokwim and the Yukon Rivers. The issue of user fees on corporate lands needs to be debated in light of the commercial fisheries disasters our people faced this summer. All these regional issues are solvable if people can get their heads together and not rely on the experts from ... outside of the region. "To eliminate the fears of the non-Natives to `Balkanize' ... rural Alaska with individual tribal governments, the regional organizations need to start debating the issue of establishing regional confederated forms of tribal governments that would develop regional generic ordinances, such as on subsistence, education and many others. For AVCP, all they need to do is to implement the directives of 1988, 1990 and 1994 convention resolutions to develop a regional tribal government that would be more responsive than the regional tribal organization. Memorandums and/or compacts then can be developed between the regional tribal governments with the state and federal governments on a government- to-government basis. "Representatives of the Akiachak Native Community and Akiachak Limited participated in the AITC/AFN/RurAL CAP-sponsored three-day Subsistence Summit in Anchorage. The community went along with the adoption of Resolution 97-01 and the seven guiding principles adopted by the participants. A full review has not been conducted by the community, but we are in support of the statewide Subsistence Summit in concept." MR. KASAYULIE referred to Resolution 97-01 and said there needs to be a correction on principle number 6, regarding inclusion of consent by the tribal organizations. He stated, "It should read that the consent should be the tribal government, not the organizations." He continued reading from his prepared statement: "I have included, ... as addendum to this testimony, the outline of the Akiachak Native Community Statewide Subsistence positions, the uncut version of my views as printed in the Anchorage Daily News on August 24, and my testimony of May 23, 1992, to the Senate Select Committee on Indian Affairs in the Oversight Hearing on the Implementation of Title VIII of ANILCA. "I thank you for the opportunity to present my comments to the House Resources Committee on this very important matter. You are dealing with the lifestyle of all indigenous peoples in Alaska, and you need to go to the villages to hear firsthand, rather than making a fast trip to regional centers such as Bethel. Thank you for the time and opportunity." RAYMOND TEELUK testified via teleconference from Kotlik. He spoke briefly in Yup'ik, without translation. [According to Ursula Hunt of Kotlik Traditional Council, Mr. Teeluk indicated he wanted to have subsistence left as it is. People in his area don't waste food or hunt for antlers or trophies. If he takes more than he can use, he shares it with others in need.] ROBERT OKITKUN, Director, Kotlik Yupik Corporation, testified next via teleconference from Kotlik. He expressed appreciation and full support for Mr. Kasayulie's comments. He said the corporation board reviewed the various proposals, and they were in favor of the Alaska Inter-Tribal Council (AITC)/Rural Community Action Program (RurAL CAP) proposal in every sense. They believe tribal members should have priority for subsistence uses, as has been the case for thousands of years. However, they realize that some non-Natives may become recognized members of the community, and they think those individuals will have no problem becoming subsistence users also. Number 484 JACKSON LOMACK, Vice Chairman, Akiachak IRA Council, testified via teleconference from Akiachak. [Note: Some of his testimony was indiscernible on tape due to poor teleconference quality.] He discussed the historical migration and intrusion of people from other countries and in North America. He said subsistence encompasses all the fish, in all the waters, and the land mammals, which his people have used to sustain them from generation to generation. He referred to co-management and the federal takeover of management. He indicated members of the Yupiit Nation had put together a draft document related to the fish and game management plan. Over a number of years, and as they were speaking, he had worked with a council of elders to deliberate about the Yupiit way of life. They have put together a draft document. In addition, they have (indisc.) a draft memorandum of agreement relating to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the Alaska Department of Fish and Game. MR. LOMACK said over a number of years, they have had meetings statewide regarding subsistence. He believes the state and federal governments should listen to their desires. Recognizing the approach of the next century, he said they need to sit down and settle this issue once and for all. Once they do that, they need to work closely with the state and federal governments, as well as, hopefully, international law, so that the systems used by the Yupiit people are not altered. Mr. Lomack referred to the people in his area and said once they put together a regional tribal government, there will be no (indisc.). He also mentioned the need for a traditional court relating to tribal priorities relating to harvest of fish and game. He hopes in the end that everyone can work together as a team to ensure the future of fish and wildlife in their area. Number 599 JOHN GEORGE, Tribal Administrator, Nightmute Traditional Council, testified via teleconference from Nightmute, specifying that his testimony related to the Native subsistence resolution and guiding principles, the Roundtable Proclamation. He said Nightmute Traditional Council, from time immemorial, has been the lead organization for the tribe's organized village of Nightmute on land, water and renewable resources. He read from a prepared statement: "Nightmute, Alaska, along with approximately 56 other villages, is located within the Yukon Delta Refuge, covering 19 million acres in the Yukon and Kuskokwim Rivers region. Nightmute is one of the Northwest Arctic region villages in Alaska. Nightmute Traditional Council represents the Yupiit people of Nightmute that very much depend on traditional and seasonal fishing, hunting, trapping and gathering, in their continuing struggle to maintain the cultural existence, which are basic human rights. About 260 people live in our community, of whom 99 percent are Yupiit Eskimo that live on the coast of Bering Strait. Those folks subsist primarily on walrus, seal, birds and other ocean fish. Traditionally and modernly, all these subsistence foods are freely shared among all villages." MR. GEORGE said subsistence is how they define themselves as individuals, as a society, as part of a greater cycle of things and as part of a greater spiritual reality. It is life and death. From a cultural perspective, it is through subsistence that they know who they are as members of their families and communities. Some would say economic development and preservation of cultural values are mutually exclusive. "We disagree," he said. "We believe with wise leadership and culturally-guided policies, economic development and cultural preservation can go hand to hand. As applied to subsistence, this philosophy also means that we refuse to be regulated by hunting and fishing laws that are designed primarily to serve larger numbers of sports hunters and sports fishermen, each of whom is allocated a small but equal portion of harvest." He said such a philosophical basis for hunting and fishing policies might be fair and reasonable if it was assumed that all users of fish and game are similarly situated. "However, this is simply not the case here," he stated. MR. GEORGE said their subsistence way of life is an inherent group right that arises out of Native sovereignty. It is recognized in the U.S. Constitution as existing before the founding of this great land. Native subsistence has been around longer and is more important than any individual's right to engage in sport hunting and fishing. Their subsistence way of life is a culturally legitimate, economically justified and legally recognized need. It is imbedded in their language, spirituality, diet, dance, songs, beliefs, myths, stories, games and harvesting activities. "It is our identity," he said. "Without it, we would cease to be ourselves." MR. GEORGE said Native tribes, Nightmute Traditional Council, the village corporations and city councils are unanimous on the matter of subsistence. He explained, "Subsistence has not been an issue to us. It is who we are: Yupiit, Inupiat, Aleut and Eskimos. We need not and will not compromise ourselves in this regard. At the same time, we are also citizens of the state of Alaska." He said the Native people of Nightmute and its organizations do not appreciate Governor Knowles' and Lieutenant Governor Ulmer's efforts to reacquire state jurisdiction over subsistence. While they believe that the Governor has tried to develop an honest compromise that takes in account all reasonable perspectives, those in Nightmute "have unanimously concluded that we cannot support any further compromise of the subsistence way of life." TAPE 97-56, SIDE A Number 001 A portion of Mr. George's testimony was cut off by the tape change. His written testimony for that portion states: "The right of Alaska Natives have been compromised several times in [the] past by federal legislation, and [the] State of Alaska has tried to compromise the subsistence since its enactment, and we can give no more without breaching the faith of our ancestors, to ourselves, to our children, and to our posterity. Statehood compact, which admitted Alaska to the Union and selected land as- of-yet unfulfilled assurance that the state would disclaim any interest in Native lands and subsistence rights. The Senate/House version of who we are is still [an] unfulfilled promise to protect the subsistence way of life." MR. GEORGE stated, "The Alaska Natives proposed in ANILCA a subsistence preference to be [a] genuine Native preference, typical of other Native American land settlement claims. Any compromise will be unacceptable. We are not unmindful of the counsels by Governor Knowles and ... several of his predecessors that matters of subsistence are best resolved by Alaskans for Alaskans." Mr. George said they share the same concerns that over the long run, federal management could prove distant and unresponsive to their vital interests. However, they conclude that in the current situation, action speaks louder than words. He said "Alaska first" is a theory that rings hollow in their ears. In contrast, in both Republican and Democrat administrations, the federal government has been a willing and honest partner that has actively and fairly implemented the ANILCA subsistence priority. It had effectively reorganized the subsistence management regime and reconstituted the subsistence advisory commission to make them truly responsive to subsistence needs. MR. GEORGE reported that the federal subsistence board is composed of professional managers whom they have found to faithfully follow ANILCA mandates in making management decisions on the basis of what is best for subsistence, without giving unmerited weight to the wants of sports and commercial users. By contrast, when it comes to settlement of Alaska Native claims, which were specifically reserved at statehood, the state "opposed us." In settling those claims, Congress abandoned federal protections in favor of (indisc.) promises "that the state would protect our subsistence interests." He said the state made a mockery of those promises with a fish and game management regime that was distant from subsistence users and was unduly responsive to other special wants represented by political appointees to the state's fish and game boards. MR. GEORGE said following enactment of ANILCA, decisions of those same boards repeatedly forced Natives to go to court, even after McDowell. He stated, "However, we would be willing to return to state regulation of subsistence had the state legislators moved quickly to amend the Alaska constitution to bring the state into compliance with ANILCA." He said instead, especially after reapportionment, the legislature has pitted the state's urban interests against its rural interests. He said, "Under these circumstances, we would be remiss to agree to return to state jurisdiction. We have found, through sad experience, that the Alaska legislature is quite dogged in its attempt to resurrect and popularize Manifest Destiny as a device to steamroll and pave over the unique, fragile and beautiful way of life that the Yupiit have taken millennia to construct." MR. GEORGE continued, "Unless and until the State of Alaska, including the legislators, acknowledges the special relationship [of] Alaska Native people and tribes with Alaska's wild renewable resources and subsistence hunting, fishing, trapping and gathering must be explicitly recognized and protected in federal law. Federal law must protect the Native way of life for both rural, Natives and tribes that still occupy their traditional lands, even though these lands are no longer considered rural. Customary and traditional Native subsistence uses, including cultural and religious use, season bag limits, methods, means and harvest patterns must be fully protected. Any regulation of subsistence must have the least-adverse impact on Native subsistence users and uses." MR. GEORGE continued, "Federal law must explicitly provide the Native management of Native subsistence use. At a minimum, tribes must sit on co-management boards as equals with state and federal managers. Co-management boards must have the authority over all aspects of subsistence management. Tribes must have an explicit authority to contract or compact [with] federal agencies for research, harvest assessments and all other such aspects ... of subsistence management. Adequate federal funding must be assured for full tribal participation and staffing on co-management boards. Native subsistence rights on Native allotments, ANCSA village and regional corporation lands, ... and lands held for tribes must be protected under federal law." MR. GEORGE continued, "Native subsistence rights must continue to be protected on federal lands and waters, as interpreted in [the] Katie John decision. The Secretaries must retain the authority to regulate state and private lands when necessary to provide for a healthy population or subsistence use upon federal and Native lands and waters. There must be continued federal oversight by the Secretary and federal court, sufficient to assure full implementation of federally protected Native subsistence rights and tribal subsistence management authority." MR. GEORGE continued, "It must be clear that ANILCA is Indian legislation entitled to the same legal rights and standards applied to other Indian legislation. Nothing in ANILCA may be interpreted ... to diminish the tribes' Indian country claims. There must be a state constitutional amendment that fairly protects harvest rights on lands owned or regulated by [the] state. Nightmute Traditional Council and Native tribes, village corporations [and] city councils strongly agree with the ... RurAL CAP Roundtable-AITC proclamation that the right forever to lead the Native way of life, to govern ourselves, to determine our own destiny and to maintain our cultural existence are basic human rights." MR. GEORGE said they stand united in their commitment to achieve recognition and protection for these basic human rights and in the determination that they won't accept any further erosion or compromise of these basic human rights. In addition, they support an Alaska tribal delegation's good-faith participation in government-to-government negotiations as equals with the United States government and the Governor to achieve the return of management to Alaska and full recognition of tribal subsistence and management rights. MR. GEORGE said the negotiating team and steering committee must fairly reflect all parts of the Native communities, and it shall be jointly appointed by the Alaska Federation of Natives (AFN), AITC and RurAL CAP for the purpose of entering into government-to- government negotiations with the Governor and the United States government over the subsistence issue and to develop Native proposals for resolution of the subsistence issue. He stated that the Native negotiators steering this committee should be guided in all negotiations and other actions by the RurAl CAP Roundtable Proclamation, as endorsed and interpreted by AITC and the March 4, 1996, AFN policy concerning resolving the subsistence issue. Any proposal that may be developed or negotiated by Native negotiators and steering committees shall be brought for approval before the Natives gathering at the statewide subsistence summit. MR. GEORGE said they are firmly committed to advancing tribal management and co-management efforts begun under the federal subsistence management regime, the Alaska Congressional delegation, Governor Knowles and others in Alaska who seek a legislative solution that includes amendments to ANILCA in order to return subsistence management to Alaska. MR. GEORGE stated, "In conclusion, we are Natives, Alaskans and Americans. We are proud of all three heritages. We do not believe it should ... be necessary to pick and choose which status is more important. We do not believe that 19th century notion of ... expansionism should be imposed upon our culture or lifestyle by the conservative fringe that currently controls the Alaska legislature. Nor do we believe that such an ... imposition can ever form the basis of a wise and stable subsistence policy." MR. GEORGE continued, "For us, subsistence is not just hunting and fishing. It is not even just putting food on the table. Rather, it forms the very foundation of our family and community relationships. Subsistence is not an issue. It is Yupiit, Tlingits and Eskimos. We hope that the State of Alaska, especially its legislators, will join us in entering the 21st century by finding ... any means of clearly and unequivocally acknowledging ... that fact. Until then, we do not believe we have no other choice, but turn to the federal government to uphold the promises made in the statehood act, the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act and ANILCA. Thank you for the opportunity to be able to testify." Number 158 HERMAN MORGAN testified next via teleconference from Aniak. [Some of his testimony was indiscernible on tape because of poor sound quality.] He stated: "I would like to thank the legislature for giving us an opportunity to testify on this important issue. I am currently the chairman of the Central Kuskokwim [Fish and Game] Advisory Committee and I've been ... involved in the committee for about 20 years. I am also on the federal fish and game advisory committee, so (indisc.) a unique perspective on different management styles. "... Right now are tough times for managing fish and game, especially with sustained yield. One of the most important priorities in fish and game management is sustained yield. And earlier today, one of the members of the Resources Committee asked Billy McCann if he thought the principle of sustained yield takes priority over subsistence. And I would like that person who asked the question to also ask the leaders in Juneau ... if they think that that sustained yield should take priority over sport (indisc.) and sport fishing. Like right now, in Unit 17, the Dillingham area, most of those moose are wiped out by sport hunters. Up in McGrath area, the wolves are wiping the moose out (indisc.) and also the sport hunting too. In Quinhagak, someone told me they had 60,000 sport fishermen. It's getting so bad they can't drink the water from the river. They get sick, there's so much human feces. What will it be next year, 100,000 sport fishermen? "... And in October, the federal government will take over the fish and game management, you know. But it's sad that the people ... were never allowed to vote on whether they wanted that or not. ... And some things that I see in (indisc.) for a vote is ... they want to ban all trapping in federal refuges." MR. MORGAN indicated if they ban trapping, the predators will increase and wipe out the (indisc.) herds. (Indisc.) even if the wolves are wiping out moose, they can't kill the wolves. There are a lot of special interest groups they'll have to deal with. They don't want to do anything to hurt subsistence or the resource. "It's going to be a tough fight," he said. "There are a lot of animal rights people." MR. MORGAN continued, "One other thing that happened in Alaska is up in the Bering Sea. These trawlers, they're taking a huge bite out of the food chain. (Indisc.) heard recently they're taking millions of pounds of pollock and other fish bycatch. A lot of those fish are part of our salmon (indisc.), Yukon (indisc.). And they -- nobody (indisc.) so we can find out (indisc.). If our rivers are fed from the Bering Sea, it could hurt the whole state. And in the headwaters, it's just being overrun (indisc.), overrun with sports fishermen. (Indisc.)." MR. MORGAN stated, "In conclusion, you know, the state has billions of dollars in the bank, and yet they cut Fish and Game's budget. (Indisc.) we need more money to manage our fish and game. We need more research, you know. We need more fish and wildlife protection officers. They say that money is there for our future. Well, what about the future of our resources? Shouldn't some of that money be used to protect the resources? ... Alaska is one of the last places on earth that is still green, and fish and wildlife are still very abundant. And they have a thing called global warming. They say that's why our salmon ... are not coming back as much as they used to, because the water's so warm. (Indisc.) what is destroying this (indisc.). Alaska has all this money in the bank, and ... our resources are being depleted. You know, we're supposed to have dominion over this earth, not destroy it." Number 221 CO-CHAIRMAN HUDSON thanked Mr. Morgan and said he'd brought up some excellent points, obviously from a position of working and understanding the interrelationships between the offshore impact of management and control of the fisheries on the returns to the streams, as well as his statements concerning the impact of almost unlimited sports fishing and hunting in areas and the lack of control over predation. Co-Chairman Hudson said he believes all of that is very important. Number 238 FRANK FOX, Natural Resources Director, Native Village of Kwinhagak, testified via teleconference from Quinhagak. He spoke very briefly in Yup'ik, then noted that with him was Paul Beebe, traditional IRA council member for the Native Village of Kwinhagak. He said other council members couldn't be there because they were participating in subsistence activities. MR. FOX advised members that the Native Village of Kwinhagak is in full support of the proclamation and proposals made at the Native Subsistence Summit in Anchorage the previous month. He stated his belief that they definitely need to have a "co-equal management" of resources to sustain their subsistence way of life, which is not a matter of law but a "matter of our right to live." He pointed out that lawsuits don't bring food to their tables. Instead, hunting, fishing, gathering and berry-picking are means of obtaining food. MR. FOX said maybe this time they will get subsistence as their right to live, which means having the right to harvest and gather food to feed their families. "Without subsistence hunting and fishing, we will not survive as people," he said, noting that subsistence has existed from time immemorial and will exist long after they are gone. He asked who in his right mind would fight their right to live. "Think about that," he concluded. He thanked the committee for the opportunity to testify. Number 305 PAUL BEEBE, Member, Quinhagak IRA Council, testified via teleconference from Quinhagak, stating in English that he would testify in his own Eskimo language. Mr. Beebe spoke in Yup'ik, and Trim Nick translated almost simultaneously, saying Mr. Beebe grew up in a subsistence lifestyle. It is his desire for his subsistence lifestyle not to be altered. This has been his livelihood. It has been passed on and should not be changed at this time. His people don't go out to the wild for the fun of it, for entertainment or recreation, but rather for food and clothing. They live off of fish and game as they become available. Mr. Trim stated, "Since the beginning of ... the subsistence issue, before we had come to a resolution on this issue, I am an elder at this point. I have a lot of things to bring forth in this testimony, but with regard to others that want to speak, I will (indisc.)." CO-CHAIRMAN HUDSON expressed respect for Mr. Beebe's longevity in Alaska and this region. He also complimented the translator for his work. Number 408 JOHN SHARP testified via teleconference from Quinhagak. He said simply that the people of the Native Village of Kwinhagak, as they always have done in the past, will continue to subsist, gather, fish, hunt and put meat on the table. He asked, "Is that understood?" CO-CHAIRMAN HUDSON said yes. Number 451 DAVID KAGANAK testified via teleconference from Scammon Bay, speaking Yup'ik. Interpreter Trim Nick provided a translation almost simultaneously. (Some of the translation was difficult to discern on tape, partly due to extraneous noise.) Mr. Nick stated on Mr. Kaganak's behalf: "... We are not trying to alter or break ... this legislation or these laws. In the spring, when the fish arrive and when it is time to subsist on this fishery ... resource, we fish ... for this resource, and we take what we need of this resource. We take what ... we need at that point for the year. We want to be able to subsist on this resource as we have done, without changing or altering by decreasing or changing the regulations in regards to whether fish and game resources, when we are given the privilege to hunt ... through the permit system or by openings. And we can't, at that point -- our resources that we use for -- for some time. These laws or regulations are enforced and (indisc.) season, and we know these regulations. "We do not wish a decrease of these (indisc.) holders, subsistence (indisc.) holders. And we now use a permit system for hunting and fishing. A lot of these ... permits are increasingly being transferred to other users, as we operate the fish and game management ... under the permit system. "And another issue is the commercial use of, like, the ordinary mammals. We harvest these mammals for trade and as an economic resource. We ... do not want a decrease or elimination of this resource as an economic resource (indisc.--coughing). "We, as a people, ... the subsistence lifestyle is a part of our framework, as a source of food. If we were to maintain this privilege, it would be to our benefit. It is not, as was stated, ... a form of recreation but (indisc.) sustenance for people. And that's what I wanted to say (indisc.)." Number 570 CARL DOCK, Kipnuk Traditional Council, testified via teleconference from Kipnuk, specifying that he works with natural resources issues. He was submitting testimony on behalf of the Native Village of Kipnuk, population 630. He said they are in full support of the guiding principles and Resolution 97-01 passed August 26-28, 1997, at the Native Subsistence Summit. They want equal responsibility to manage the subsistence resource for the benefit of their people, including involvement in proposals and regulations. MR. DOCK stated that subsistence is vital to their way of life as Alaska Natives, and they must be recognized and have the right to manage and have responsibility over their subsistence. "If the State of Alaska wants to manage our subsistence, they must agree to the guiding principles and Resolution 97-01 that was passed by the Natives of ... Alaska here in the Native Subsistence Summit," he stated. "We hope that you will consider our position and recognize our capabilities to manage on an equal basis our subsistence and the resources that we depend on." Number 605 NICK LUPIE testified next via teleconference from Tuntutuliak, in Yup'ik. Interpreter Trim Nick translated almost simultaneously, stating: "I want you listening to understand the testimony that has been given. A lot of what I want to say has been presented already by the previous speakers. We are speaking for the villages, on behalf. This lifestyle as we have lived it is a very important issue. This lifestyle is a hazardous lifestyle. There have been casualties. Since I was a child, we have had hardship and the shortages at times, and we at times don't know how we will survive in the next day. "It is my wish that we prepare -- not be a forced regulation of this lifestyle, since we already have another or a higher order that is regulating this lifestyle. Although we have hardships at times and don't know how we will get by, like in the next day or so ...." [Ends mid-speech due to tape change.] TAPE 97-56, SIDE B Number 001 MR. LUPIE continued in Yup'ik. The interpreter said: "This subsistence dilemma or issue, as we have (indisc.) or in older times, we as elders, as we have lived it, have not been happy with the divisiveness in the regulation of ... fish and game management, taking the rivers or the tributaries and the upper regions as an example. Our subsistence lifestyle, ... we deliberate over it and over its management, since we have started this as a lifestyle. I wanted to present these things to this committee in support of and to give you support as you debate over this issue. I am grateful for this opportunity to speak ... along with the others that have spoken." Number 028 PETER ELACHIK testified via teleconference from Kotlik, stating support for the AITC/RurAL CAP proposal. He emphasized that in addition to putting food on the table immediately, subsistence users put away food for the winter. His staple diet comes from the water, the land or the air. It is supplemented by food from the store, including sugar and flour. Living from the store is cost- prohibitive. He believes restricting subsistence would force more people onto welfare, resulting in additional costs to the state and federal governments. WILLIE KAMKOFF testified via teleconference from Kotlik, speaking Yup'ik. The interpreter translated almost simultaneously, saying: "It is imperative that we not change our lifestyle, ... as it's affected by the subsistence issue. As a child, we had depended on fish and game and did not have the staples that had been imported, like flour. It would lead to (indisc.) carry on, without changing the regulatory system, because we are concerned at this point of our children and our grandchildren and the access they will have to these resources. "At that time, the hunters and the fishermen did not say they were designating their hunting as such a resource, as a -- that was never (indisc.). ... They did not say -- or they did not go out because they had been permitted ... through an opening or by regulation. Whatever resource was harvested was used in the home. And the sea mammals on the coastal area, the same as the land-based resources. Our subsistence lifestyle is one that we must keep and ... would, remembering our children and our grandchildren, with those others to come. It is imperative that we not alter or change this lifestyle, the system, so that these children will have access to these resources. We (indisc.) under a permit system at this point, with the designated seals or certain resources, as we were not regulated in times past. This lifestyle is one we need to keep and not change. We, as Yup'ik people, we need to return to ... our ways where we were not (indisc.) by a regulatory or (indisc.) system and to have access to these resources as we live. That's what I wanted to say." Number 111 MYRA OLSEN, Chief, Egegik Tribal Council, testified via teleconference from Egegik. She emphasized that for any proposed solution, there must be participation and support of the federally- recognized tribes in Alaska. She stated: "The resolution demands that the RurAL CAP/AITC/AFN summit, along with the guiding principles, are the intent to form a basis for agreement in resolving this issue. And I'd like to point out, as Willie Kasayulie did, that number 6 of the resolution should read, `Any resolution negotiated by the representatives must be ratified by the full and informed consent of the Alaska Native tribes.' I really think that should be emphasized. "The recognition of the government-to-government relationship with the United States needs to be understood by the Alaska State Legislature, and a foundation of this governmental authority over our people should be basic to negotiating a settlement to this issue. Subsistence is our way of life. It is not welfare or even limited to hunting and fishing. And subsistence taking of all fish and game in Alaska is 4 percent of all the resources in the state. And, in fact, the subsistence take of fish in Bristol Bay amounts to a fraction of 1 percent of the total run. When we hear the arguments of sport hunters and fishers that Alaska's resources are their right, the question arises of why no mention is made of the nonresident for hunting and fishing rights interests that for several years have exceeded the (indisc.) licensing. And to craft legislation that favors them and provides increasing profits for a few guides and tourist-related businesses is not fair to the indigenous peoples of Alaska. "As to the issue of Alaska management, as we've watched what's happened the past several years, it is (indisc.) that the federal subsistence board is made up of knowledgeable people of the region, and (indisc.) relations are heeded, while the state boards make sure that (indisc.) in place or override recommendations by advisory committees. And those representatives of sport fish and hunting (indisc.) of their proposals. "As to state management, the legislature, in their efforts to show budget reduction, have cut operating budgets so severely, I question whether workable programs can remain, knowing the legislators again plan more budget reductions. To illustrate what I mean, this summer the Alaska Department of Fish and Game in Bristol Bay allowed a seiner to fish, which is illegal in Bristol Bay for salmon, in a closed area, to obtain money to enhance their operating budget, placing managers in direct competition with fishers for the resource. As you know, this year Bristol Bay has been declared an economic disaster. And so, my question is: Whose fish did they take for field samples taken? "You wonder why the Native community has (indisc.) regarding state management. Subsistence, or our way of life, is a basic human right, and attempts by the state to remove our protection, to pursue our way of life, will be resisted adamantly. Thank you." Number 161 NOAH ANDREW testified via teleconference from Tuluksak. [Some testimony was indiscernible on tape due to poor sound quality, extraneous noise and low-level speech by others.] He said his urgent message is, "Think before legislation." He mentioned how people beginning school learn the basics, 1, 2, 3 and A, B, C, which are used for the rest of one's life. "Learn this and learn it well," he said. "Subsistence is everyone in the family: man, wife, sons and daughters. Bringing it closer yet, subsistence is me. Subsistence is part of me that nourishes me. It clothes my family, my children, my wife and myself. Subsistence is my way of life. Subsistence is me and my friends, the (indisc.)." MR. ANDREW mentioned recreation and said, "The main thing to me: food. The fur clothes me, materials made of reindeer. A waterproof bag I need ... to store for others, for a later time. ... In each tribe, the guts are needed for the drum, the meat is needed to feed the families, the furs ... are skinned and needed to clothe all the members of the family." MR. ANDREW indicated the bottom line is those living the subsistence lifestyle instead of those trying to regulate subsistence but not living on it. He indicated he was depending on this committee, and he asked, "Where is all this leading to?" He emphasized his dependence on the resource and said all their lives, they'd been taught by the very people living on the resources. He said, "We know how to use them. We know how to store them. We know how to preserve them. We know how to let them go and multiply." He stated, "No one can better manage the fish and (indisc.) than the Natives themselves." He noted that century after century, they had managed it. MR. ANDREW asked: "What's wrong with federal government managing federal lands, state government managing state lands, and village governments managing village lands? There are (indisc.) federal and state laws existing, protecting Natives." He mentioned the state constitution and the compact with the United States, under which the people agreed and declared that they forever disclaimed all right and title to land or other property not (indisc.) to the state or (indisc.). He noted that this included fishing rights. He also discussed co-management and the need to work together. Mr. Andrew concluded, "We are the subsistence. Let us regulate ourselves in our communities, in our villages. He mentioned co- management and emphasized that all laws relating to subsistence must be ratified by the community and village. "They live on it; it's their life," he added. Number 285 CORRINE OLSEN testified via teleconference from Egegik, on Bristol Bay. She is not originally from there, but her husband is one of Egegik's best hunters and is a commercial fisherman. They'd made no money that year from commercial fishing, and they need to rely on the land to provide for them. "Subsistence was, and always will be, our way of life, because of our ability and knowledge to harvest what the land provides," she explained. "We have never been on welfare, and we don't plan on applying for welfare." Number 333 CO-CHAIRMAN HUDSON called a recess at 3:14 p.m. He called the meeting back to order at 3:25 p.m. Number 340 JAMES GUY, SR., came forward to testify. He provided some family history, including that his father was a good trapper, hunter and reindeer herder. When he was 15 years old, Mr. Guy went out with his father, traveling all over. He pointed out that subsistence hunting is not easy. One might catch two or three geese and then return because of a big storm, coming back to camp soaking wet. His own father set traps when the season was open and stored the traps and snares before the season closed. However, he never stopped subsistence hunting throughout the year. MR. GUY said he'd like to keep up this subsistence, to pass along to their youngsters. Since 1990, he can no longer hunt or lift a five-gallon can. He restated that it is not easy subsistence hunting; sometimes a hunter comes home with nothing or comes home chilly and wet all over. "But sometimes you get lucky; one day, you bring home something," he said. Mr. Guy discussed ice fishing on a river and making an ice hole for fishing for food for the evening. "The next day, go out subsistence again," he added. "We keep on trying, every day, never stop. But when we catch one, we quit for a week and go out for river fish (indisc.)." Referring to mention that day of False Pass, he indicated his father had told him the salmon come through there and "spread out from this side," with some going to Bristol Bay and some to the Kuskokwim and Yukon Rivers. "He was a good educator, my dad," he said. "He knew everything. He traveled everywhere." Number 494 JOHNNY EVAN came forward to testify, specifying that he lives and works in Bethel at the AVCP tribal office. He'd been absent most of the past few years from his village. There are nine people in his family, one adopted. His 16-year-old son is doing roe now in the sound. "And to subsist, I can't hunt on Sundays," he said. "I can only hunt on Saturdays. So, these are trying times for my oldest boy; he's only 16." He said people live in a convoluted society, with the mainstream society never agreeing with other societies on anything to benefit constituents. MR. EVAN asked, "Keeping this in mind, who are you? Who are we?" He specified that the question was to everybody. He asked: Who makes the natural resources and for what purposes? Are we part of that resource? He explained, "We are but one of the species within the environment, living in the sake of supporting each other. Then, who is deteriorating this environment or habitat? This leads to the state and federal government, who have been against the benefits of the indigenous societies throughout history." MR. EVAN said research proves that the state and federal governments, and even the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA), have been against the interests of the Natives, while Native societies have been working for their best interests in persuading the organizations to benefit the Natives. He asked, "And subsistence, I have a question: Is it better then or now? Regardless of who manages the subsistence, it still will be convoluted ... unless the tribes manage their own affairs. They have their own capabilities." MR. EVAN continued, "We do not have problems with subsistence. It's the state and federal government who are having problems with the issue. It has been (indisc.) to state and federal government for interfering with the living environment of the indigenous societies. How, then, are they interfering? These are through regulations on who, when, where and how to subsist, with quotas, bag limits and other unnecessary paperwork." MR. EVAN stated, "Putting more regulations to the Native societies will lead to more poverty. We are below the poverty level. We don't need this restriction. ... I just wish we, the Native people, the indigenous societies, were free from ... dictations as to when to subsist." He said they are living within the American environment that is being deteriorated by the mainstream society. He concluded by saying his perception of subsistence is that it will never be resolved. Number 637 TAD MILLER came forward to testify. He stated, "While I represent myself in this instance, I wish to draw attention to a resolution by the Bethel City Council, of which I am a member, that states by unanimous vote its support for a rural preference for subsistence activities. Further, it poses the amendments to ANILCA put forward by Senator Murkowski and Congressperson Young. In addition, it highlights our support for Native subsistence rights for those persons living in urban environments. I believe, to our knowledge, this is the only municipal resolution coming forward to support the, basically, AFN position on the subsistence question." MR. MILLER stated, "What is happening here is that state government is messing with the food chain, and now it is falling victim to another regulatory predator, which is the federal government. And until the state legislature is able to understand, in compassionate, human terms, the need for people in rural areas to practice what has been a tradition for over 19,800 years, predating the existence of the federal government, the right to subsistence, I welcome the federal government's takeover of wildlife management." MR. MILLER continued, "As an American citizen, as a world citizen, as a human being, I think it's appropriate that at least this government agency, the feds in this case, that have the courage and wisdom to do what seems just the righteous act in this particular trying case of people who, for cultural, traditional and nutritional reasons, practice what is natural to them. Putting race aside, this is a human question. We understand that welfare reform is upon us, for excellent reasons. However, this is true welfare reform in its most dramatic terms. The moral equivalence would be for the state government to eliminate Carrs, 7-Eleven and Circle K grocery stores in urban areas by eliminating the opportunity for subsistence activities for rural citizens." [End of tape.] TAPE 97-57, SIDE A Number 001 FRANK CHIHGLIAK came forward to testify. [Begins mid-speech due to tape change.] He said he hoped that testimony from others, from the villages, would not just evaporate but would be carried out. He noted the empty chairs and pointed out that all the men were out hunting, as he himself would be doing if he had his way. He stated, "It's quite logical to manage fish and game." He mentioned "saving for a rainy day" and storing something in their freezers or at home. He recalled an elder saying 20 or 25 years before that "when we quit hunting a certain species of animal or waterfowl, that somehow they begin to disappear." As a modern Yup'ik, he'd begun to be skeptical about that theory. However, this summer he'd heard about murres and other birds that people don't normally hunt beginning to die, and he'd wondered whether there was truth to the saying. MR. CHIHGLIAK pointed out that right now, roughly 20,000 Yup'ik people reside in that area. They aren't all men; they're not all hunters. When the Department of Fish and Game reports all species, they count hundreds of thousands. Therefore, when there are stipulations or policies regarding management of fish and game, he believes there shouldn't be stipulations against the livelihood of the human beings. MR. CHIHGLIAK said he'd learned to clothe himself with another culture's attire. However, after eating another culture's food, he needs to use Pepto-Bismol or Tums because of heartburn. MR. CHIHGLIAK concluded with a story about a porcupine and a beaver. The beaver was cutting down all the trees in the porcupine's "turf," and the porcupine was fed up. "So, he says to the beaver, `You'd better quit cutting down my trees or else I'm going to poke you with one of my quills.' So, the beaver, ... afraid of getting poked with his quills, says, `Well, but I can't climb ... up to the limbs and then eat like you. So, what I'll do is I'll gnaw it down, fall it over and then eat.' But then the porcupine said, `Well, if you keep doing that, it's going to cause ... me problems.' So, the beaver says, `Well, I have to tear down to eat what you eat.'" MR. CHIHGLIAK continued, "And I guess the same thing is, ... with us, we have to tear down our own natural appetite to eat ... a hamburger or maybe a pork chop. So, ... whether or not the governmental agencies or fish and game management implement all kinds of laws and rules about what I should eat as a Yup'ik, ... what an Aleut should eat as an Aleut, an Athapaskan as an Athapaskan or et cetera, et cetera, ... those rules and those stipulations, they're not going to change my natural form of life." CO-CHAIRMAN HUDSON commented that it was a good analogy. He called on Charles Hunt, but there was no response. Number 067 PASCHAL AFCAN came forward to testify, saying he had over a half- century of living and working with the people in the Yukon- Kuskokwim delta and all along the coast. He had traveled extensively throughout the northern and western United States and Canada, and he had talked to many Natives throughout the Northern Hemisphere. He'd heard only one philosophy regarding subsistence and their way of life. He said no one can change those rules and regulations that the Natives already have, from "way back when." MR. AFCAN stated, "Two foreign governments, actually, is what I see, competing to take over management of our lifestyle, our spiritual, cultural and physical way of life, this subsistence management. ... And no one, ... Western, Eastern, or Southern or African, any other culture, cannot understand it well enough to try to presume to assume governing this way of life. This is just simply insane, as I see it, trying to take over management of our way of life." MR. AFCAN asked whether committee members would have agreed to needing a license or lunch ticket in order to eat in Bethel, a Native community. Similarly, an "outside government" was coming to tell them that they must have licenses and permits, as well as follow rules and regulations in order to feed themselves and their families. "This is getting ... sicker and sicker all the time," he stated. "The only governing entity for this resource is the power you don't know of, because you're very highly technologically developed and very low in your spiritual development. This is what I see about the people and the Western culture." MR. AFCAN mentioned the presumption of telling them, "this is how you must use your resources." He asked, "How many of you people up here have grocery stores in your community?" He said the Native way of life is centered on natural resources, which are their supermarkets. "And you assume, ... audaciously come and tell us there will be no hunting this or that," he said. "You can only take this much. No one in his right mind will come into your house with lock and key on your refrigerator and tell you, `You can only open it at six o'clock in the evening or ten o'clock at night, to have something to eat. I hope I'm making myself clear." Number 159 CO-CHAIRMAN HUDSON responded, "Mr. Afcan, you are making yourself clear. But if you're looking at the groups of us up here, we are not here to tell you anything. We're here to listen to you, and we will take it back and see that our colleagues in the House and the Senate are fully aware of how you testify and the strength of your conviction. So, I hope you don't believe that anybody up here is trying to impose upon you anything. All we want to do is to hear from you, and I think we're hearing that loud and clear." Number 180 MR. AFCAN replied, "In my time, I have seen Native people being fooled around with, given this and that. First, they go to the villages, okay, and tell us, `If you don't believe in this or that, you are going straight to hell unless you come to our side. (Indisc.) came along and did the same thing: You take this, you will get a fine because it's closed during this time. These are not the indigenous people's rules and regulations in their lives. And everything that is in nature, provided by nature, is given to them by a power greater than anyone ... who is presumptuous enough to try to manage it." He said he'd learned from many villages; he named several. MR. AFCAN stated, "The people rely on subsistence. So, if you want to work with the people on their subsistence way of life, your only hope, that is to change your state constitution, this constitution, to where not too many of our communities (indisc.) developing. This comes from a poll, like this area where everyone is free to take everything, anything and everything they want, during the seasons. Now, we need to, if we are going to conserve some of these resources, we need to restrict this to the indigenous people of Alaska. ... And this is the opportunity ... to ... fix your mistakes that you've made in developing the state constitution. And also, work closer with the people, the indigenous people, in developing some ways that they can manage their resources themselves." MR. AFCAN continued, "And another thing you can do is to make your scientists, biologists, available to work with the people, of course, and also to have a lot of community input into your rules and regulations, if you must have rules and regulations for the rural people. Otherwise, if you must have rules and regulations, enforce them on the people who come into Alaska from outside. Look at down by Bristol Bay. Most of the fishermen are outsiders, with high-technology fishing instruments and gear. The Natives are very low in numbers down there. Same way with the Kuskokwim fisheries; there are a lot of outsiders getting into commercial fishing. And that's because they need the money." MR. AFCAN continued, "People from outside need money. And the easiest way to get it is by using these resources that rightfully belong to Alaska Natives: the Indians, Aleuts, the Yup'ik, Inupiaq. And they have to suffer now because these resources have been raped by these commercial people. And I think it would be better for the federal government to take over the management of fish and wildlife on the navigable waters if the state cannot -- going to change their constitution, work with the people, and also (indisc.) develop fuller communications with all rural villages. Thank you very much." Number 236 DICK ANDREW came forward to testify in Yup'ik. Interpreter Trim Nick spoke almost simultaneously, stating that it had been quite a while since Mr. Andrew was born; in years past, he'd heard stories about strife or conflict over issues in the land and how the Creator would "allow Revelations or a (indisc.) period to occur." The interpreter stated: "As we speak of this, I want to add: We as the people within the (indisc.) of the resources, legislators and lawmakers that came to our land to write these laws and regulations, whereas we should be the ones to be managing these resources. I have traveled to communities here in Alaska. I have seen that they subsist, harvest and eat the same resources as we, as the Yup'ik people eat. The fish and game resources that are harvested and used are no different from those that we use in my area. (Indisc.) in these communities. Our forefathers have told us to harvest as needed, to treat the land and its resources with respect, and to harvest enough resources to last through the winter. ... But those resources that we harvest in abundance were those that would see us through the winter. "And I have seen the sports fishermen ... that catch and release the fish as they catch them. That is not good. We, as subsistence users, harvest and would use all parts of what we take. And those that are fishing for their own (indisc.) of the fish, that ... should not be happening. ... And as I travel to other parts of the state, to the other Native communities, I have seen that they harvest ... in much the same way. "This fish and game is an essential staple of our diet if we are in a (indisc.) shortage or in a hungry period, and these type of regulations or legislation is not going to stop our harvest or our hunting and fishing. And although bag limits or permit systems or regulations are imposed, ... this food, these resources are our livelihood ... for Native Alaskans. "Even children, Native children, today cannot be without this, the subsistence food. And in years past, ... regulations have been established, with statehood, that have been imposed, of the people, to be followed. And we have lived accordingly. But that these regulations that ... pretty much are our food source, as the speakers that have spoken before me, regulations may not (indisc.) us from harvesting the fish and game resources, because it was our food. I will stop at this point because there are others that would like to speak after me." CO-CHAIRMAN HUDSON thanked Mr. Andrew and the interpreter. He requested that future testimony and translations not be simultaneous, in order to have a complete record; Representative Ivan to translated the request into Yup'ik. JOBE ABRAHAM came forward and testified in Yup'ik. The interpreter then stated: "This is Jobe Abraham from Chefornak. He says that he was born in Nightmute but had moved to Chefornak because there was no school established in ... his community until much later. With all the testimony that's been given, it's understandable. What's been presented has been that ... we do not want major changes in our lifestyle and therefore in their regulation regarding subsistence. But he said that when he was younger, there were very, very few White people in this area. But those that first arrived said that this lifestyle that we, as a Yup'ik people, lead would not be altered. His question is: Is that true?" CO-CHAIRMAN HUDSON replied that he believed he could speak for the whole committee here. He stated, "We believe that these unique subsistence needs that you have would, and probably will, continue to be provided. It's a question of who does the managing and, ... technically speaking, how we fashion it into law. But I think regardless of whether the feds manage and control or whether the state assumes management, ... there will be providing for your unique ... lifestyle." MR. ABRAHAM continued in Yup'ik. The interpreter said: "Mr. Abraham stated that he ... at this point does not like the divisions among the groups, the Native groups and I guess the urban groups, the fighting and the divisiveness in dealing with this issue, because he had heard, and had been told, from the beginning, that ... there would not be ... any changes regarding this lifestyle. "He stated that prior to statehood there were no regulations or rules or laws that were imposed on the people in this area, and he personally himself had never been asked whether he would like for his land or this land that he lives on to be a part of a state. And secondly, he has asked the members of this body, the body that is here, if they personally had been asked whether they would like for (indisc.) to become a state. And he finalized by saying that no hands went up to that question. "In regards to ... fish and game regulation, it is his concern that if we make a controversy regarding these resources, ... their management, using the reindeer herds of the past which were abundant in his childhood as an example, these herds had many owners. And at some point, they fought over ownership or of the herds themselves. And in time, these were disseminated or no longer existed. It is his concern that these resources, as we proceed to ... bicker and ... to have controversy over these resources or this issue, that they may have the same fate. "We, as subsistence users, harvest ... this fish and game as much as we need. ... We have heard and it has been spoken, and I have seen [on] television, sports hunters or sports fishermen that, for recreation, catch and release these fish that are swimming in the waters. We, as human beings, even with minor wounds or cuts ... have discomfort. It is my feeling that ... it is the same with this fish resource. "It is my concern that we not make a controversy out of this subsistence issue or this lifestyle, whether you be White, Native, or of another race. I think we need to be treated equally. And under the regulatory system, I, at some point, do not want to subsist hunt or fish with a permit, under the permit system. "I have heard in the instances that our elders, as leaders or as educators, are not recognized or acknowledged in this process. And ... it is ... my desire to see them in this process, in this regulatory and management process, to be involved through co- management. And it is my question why they have not been recognized or acknowledged up to this point." CO-CHAIRMAN HUDSON responded, "I don't have an answer. ... I suspect that some have been conferred with. And I think that we're always open, particularly those people who really have the best information and the longest record of history of it. So, I welcome it personally, but I don't know why it hasn't been done to the extent that it should have been in the past, if that's the case." Number 637 MATTHEW NICOLAI, President, Calista Corporation, came forward to testify, specifying that Calista Corporation is the regional corporation for the Yukon-Kuskokwim delta. He welcomed legislators and noted that the corporation has 13,000-plus shareholders who are registered under the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act of 1971. Their subsurface land holdings are over 6.1 million acres of land in that region. MR. NICOLAI noted that his testimony was written and that he had distributed copies at the meeting. He read, with additional comments: "Calista Corporation and the Association of Village Council Presidents (AVCP) were the two primary organizations that spearheaded the amendments to the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act that gave protection to rural residents for subsistence. Those protections we wanted for subsistence were specific under the commerce clause and the property clause of the U.S. Constitution. "I'd like to share with you what Calista, AVCP and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service wrote, a property management agreement in 1974 signed by the late Edward Hoffman (ph) and then our chairman and president, Raven C. Christianson (ph) and also the U.S. Fish and Wildlife representative, Gordon Watson (ph). This agreement that was signed was a three-way agreement that gave priority for protecting subsistence needs of our Native lifestyles. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service agreed to consult with Calista, AVCP and our village corporations involving hunting, fishing and trapping on federal lands. U.S. Fish and Wildlife kept its terms by listening to our concerns. For the first time in Alaskan history, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service made a[n] agreement to set up an advisory council to make recommendations to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for management of fish and game in our region." TAPE 97-57, SIDE B Number 001 The document from which Mr. Nicolai was reading, in part, continued as follows, although most of this portion is not on tape: "This agreement was so successful that it led to development of a statewide system of what is now known as the federal subsistence board for the state. We are fortunate. The U.S. Constitution has plenary powers to regulate and invoke its constitutional authority over Native affairs to protect and provide opportunity for continued subsistence uses on public lands by Native and non-Native rural residents." MR. NICOLAI stated: "That is why Title VIII of ANILCA was included to protect subsistence for rural residents. The U.S. Congress has continually asserted its treaty powers to protect the environment, including fish and wildlife. That is why several segments of the federal statutes are written to regulate hunting activities of Alaska Natives. I want to name a few of those. These statutes are numerous since statehood and also when the Native claims was passed. The Migratory Bird Treaty Act, the [Marine] Mammal Protection Act, the Endangered Species Act, International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling, the Fur Seal Convention, Agreement on the Conservation of Polar Bears, Convention for the Conservation of Migratory Caribou and their Environment, and the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 all affect hunting and fishing rights of Alaska Natives. "Subsistence hunting and fishing for Alaska Natives is not a problem. It is a problem of the State of Alaska boards of fish and game. Those boards do not listen to Native subsistence users. They listen to commercial and sport fishing and the sport guiding industry. For that reason, many of our Native organizations have become accustomed to lawsuits to bring about fairness to the subsistence issue. The trust responsibility of the federal government towards Alaska Natives did not cease in 1971. ANCSA, like many of you have heard through the newspapers in Anchorage, many times I hear from the non-Native society, which I live amongst, that ANCSA abolished our traditional tribal rights. It did not. Therefore, the past 25 years, tribal governments have made numerous agreements with the federal government to manage fish and game on federal lands. "Subsistence ... is a misunderstood economy that has not been thoroughly studied. The volume of fish and wildlife consumed by rural residents has an unwritten cash value that the state's bureaucracy does not understand. Subsistence is a priceless commodity that the state cannot take away from Alaska Natives. ... Even ... with the technology and population changes, our Native people still live off the lands. "How should the state measure subsistence economy? It's very difficult to replace subsistence with a legal tender process. Subsistence is a right for Alaska Natives. Many Natives may live in urban Alaska, like me. And there's 27,000 of us that live in Anchorage alone. I want to give an example that I want to use as myself. Even though I have a right to hunt and fish ..., even though we have the right to hunt for sea mammals, I don't know how to hunt sea mammals. Even though that right is given to me, I do not go out and go seal hunting because I was not accustomed to that process." MR. NICOLAI said 27,000 living in Anchorage don't go out and shoot sea otters or whales, despite having the right. Still, they have a "yearning to share that amongst our own that understand that system." For example, relatives coming through Anchorage share foods with him, his family and other relatives. Mr. Nicolai stated: "Whether it's dry fish, whether it's seal oil, many rural and urban Natives still barter for those foods. Subsistence directly and indirectly affects the state's and federal welfare economy. Welfare economy is a cash-value system, versus subsistence economy for Alaska Natives is a cultural-value system. Welfare cannot replace the subsistence economy, period. Alaska Natives have historically managed fish and wildlife through this cultural-value system where depletion of any type of wildlife resources is not allowed. "Many educated biologists do not understand why Alaska Natives sometimes do not hunt or fish certain species of wildlife at certain times, even though those species are open for taking for personal consumption, because we listen to our elders. Recently, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has been the catalyst for developing a system where Native cultural values are used to manage fish and wildlife in our region. They have been working very well with our village leadership through the co-management system to allow Native values to manage fish and game in this region. "The State of Alaska boards of fish and game have not reached out with our village subsistence users. Subsistence economy has to be categorized, but the correct classification must be identified in the state's domestic product with an urgency of an Alaska Native value. "Over the past ten years, the State of Alaska's Department of Fish and Game has failed immeasurably to manage fish in our region. Subsistence fishing was not allowed at certain times in several summers, while commercial fishing was allowed earlier when one of the -- Mr. Guy talked about ... False Pass fisheries, while they're allowed to catch our salmon headed to our rivers in this area. The state Board of Fish[eries] listened to educated biologists that favored commercial fisheries. The State of Alaska values cash priority for commercial fishing [more] than that of a subsistence priority for rural Alaskans. Who has priority for the fish that is swimming back to its spawning grounds? It is time that the State of Alaska - and the legislature has to be the leader in this - rewrite its whole system of fish and game management by abolishment of the state board of game and fish and replace them with regional advisory boards. "Recently, the Governor's subsistence task force developed a proposal that ... defined priority, customary, traditional and a standard of protection for subsistence harvest and opportunities for urban Natives to subsist if they are eligible. This proposal is ... just a start for Alaskans to participate in the development of new rules and regulations. However, Calista Corporation will not support any amendments to ANILCA that remove rural preference under Title VIII of ANILCA and federal oversight provided under Section 807 of ANILCA. Federal courts have been fair and just to Native Americans. "Who should have priority for subsistence usage? Calista has historically supported Native preference at all times. Even if we have adopted dominant non-Native ways of hunting and fishing, we still have ... strong cultural ... ties with our subsistence way of life. Our yearnings for Native foods are still ... the cornerstone of our family values. Although my family lives in urban Alaska, we need Native foods such as dry fish, dried meats and other Native foods we gather from the `bush.' "As Alaska Native people, we have not had the opportunity to participate - what earlier many of our elders were talking about - to participate in the statehood process, in writing of the land claims, and writing of fish and game management for the state. What is customary and traditional to Alaska Natives for subsistence is based upon respect for conservation and understanding of `no- waste policy.' Customary and traditional values are taught to us by our family structures, to use only what we need. That means gathering of foods from the land and water, ... based on sustaining and maintaining of culture needs of our daily lives. "Alaska Natives today have several exemptions for hunting sea mammals. Many urban Natives can hunt and harvest seals, walruses, whales, sea otters and many other sea mammals under the Marine Mammal Protection Act. Just because we were given that hunting right, we do not abuse the system. Unfortunately, American history indicates that the non-Natives abuse their hunting and fishing privileges. The buffalo, the mountain lion, the wolf, the elk, salmon, the steelhead are prime examples that the federal government had to exercise their plenary powers to seek protection of them by federal ... regulatory process. "Alaska Natives must be given a first right of refusal for harvesting subsistence needs for fish and wildlife by bag limits and proxy hunting, regardless of where we live. It is important to write legislation that will develop regional councils that have the power to manage fish and wildlife through a public hearing process, and have committee members without conflict serving them. That's what we have, a problem in these two boards today. Their conflict is so strong that the subsistence becomes ... the last category. Yet in the state regulations, there is a paragraph that talks about sustained yield basis. Sustained yield basis does not work. Sustained yield basis means `take the fish, take the game and forget the subsistence hunter and fisherman.' That's what it is today. Alaska Natives, we must be given that right. "We are in favor of federal jurisdiction when the state is out of compliance. All the waterways and lands should be included in this process. Native lands are not public property. They have been deemed as Indian ... properties under federal courts. Those lands are just like Indian properties in the Lower 48 states. In the event the state does not come into compliance, the federal government should take over all duties of fish and wildlife management in a timely manner. October 1 is coming around fast. The legislature doesn't want to meet because of basic politics of misunderstanding. "We do not want to see changes to Sections 803, 804, 805, 806, 807, 813, 814. And just like federal courts, we recognize ANILCA as Indian law. These sections, or the amendments, I want to recognize a couple of individuals that put in a lot of these amendments; and he was here earlier. Nelson Anaka (ph) was the land manager for Calista, and Carl Jack (ph) was president of AVCP. They spent weeks down in Washington, D.C., putting these amendments ... into ANILCA, because we lost them under Section 4B of ANCSA. We spent considerable time. And I had just started in Calista in 1975. I've been with the company for 23 years. "Only can we ... be protected by ANILCA under this present hostile system. As Alaska Natives, we have sacrificed our lifestyles before and after statehood. As Alaska Natives, we cannot just quietly sit and wait on subsistence. Only when subsistence becomes Alaska Native, only, can we agree to remove rural preference under ANILCA. As Alaska Natives, we do not abuse our privileges to hunt or fish. A `no-net policy' is not good enough for Calista Corporation. We need to improve that no-net policy above and beyond what we have at present. It is very difficult to authorize the state to manage fish and game as they have done today, because we know in the future the state will look for ways to cancel new regulations in the future. That is the reason why Calista and AVCP worked hard in the 1970s to protect subsistence for our shareholders. Subsistence is not a negotiable issue. We will not lose it." MR. NICOLAI thanked the committee and concluded, "We need your help to work with us and bring about positive changes by listening to rural Alaskans, not `urbanian' Alaskans." Number 173 JOSEPH ALEXIE, President, Tuluksak IRA Council, came forward to testify on behalf of his village. He stated, "I don't have a million dollars like Governor Knowles to hire attorneys to talk for me and stay back home and listen." He indicated his village's position is that while the state and federal governments fight over subsistence, his village would continue with subsistence as they had in the past, including the tradition of helping elders and those in need from the village and surrounding areas. They will not tolerate the "sports people" coming to their hunting grounds and looking for trophies or doing catch-and-release fishing for fish upon which they depend upon for subsistence use. CO-CHAIRMAN HUDSON asked that those with written testimony abbreviate their testimony in order to hear from as many people as possible. He assured participants that written comments would be reviewed carefully. Number 195 FRED SMITH came forward to testify, reading from a written statement. He said on the surface it may seem that subsistence is a management issue, and it may be the state's intention to deal with it that way. He stated: "As an Alaska Native, this is not a management issue. It is a threat to my livelihood, existence and future. As you listen to Alaska Natives here, there are no compromises and therefore nothing to negotiate. "Regarding all federal Indian law as it applies to Alaska, including the subsistence issue, the State of Alaska and its legislature must respect and accept the rights and practices of Alaska Natives. No federal legislation has abolished tribes. The feds recognize tribes and have even reinstated recognition of certain tribes in the Lower 48. In Alaska, even if Congress established ... corporations versus reservations, tribes remain to exist as local governing bodies. The State of Alaska must recognize the government-to-government relationship that Alaska tribes have with the United States. This relationship has resulted ... in numerous Congressional actions affecting and/or pertaining to the existence and well-being of Alaska Native tribes. "After ANCSA and in ANILCA, Congress dealt with subsistence. It's unfortunate that the wording "Native" was changed to "rural," but Congressional intent in ANILCA Title VIII was to accept and reconfirm the rights of Alaska Natives' continued dependence and access to subsistence and fish and game resources. That's my understanding. If the state cannot respect and accept these federal premises and actions, then managing fish and game activities that encompass the tribal-federal relationship is not a good idea." MR. SMITH said as he sees it, the problem is the state Administration's and legislature's ignorance of federal Indian law, its application to Alaska Natives, and lack of respect for Alaska Native people. If the state doesn't consider the rights and practices of Alaska Natives as tribes, there will be no resolution to the subsistence issue. "The same will apply to the Indian country debate," he added. Mr. Smith said all morning, they'd been listening to Native people telling them the state cannot operate and come to resolution dealing with the issues in the narrow scope as defined in Alaska's constitution: one state, one people. He concluded, "We are a different people." He asked that members share with people in Juneau that there are tribes in Alaska. Number 250 CO-CHAIRMAN HUDSON called a recess for dinner at 5 p.m. He called the meeting back to order at 6:27 p.m. Number 272 MOSES PETER, Village of Tuluksak, came forward to testify. He said Alaska Natives have accepted the challenge of the "survival way of life since time immemorial, 1867." He indicated in 1877, Edward William Nelson (ph), began biology and natural history studies of Eskimos in Western Alaska for the Smithsonian Institution, including making collections from the then-little-known region. He stated, "Generally, people treated him with kindness, and because of his desire to buy old objects, many of which they cast aside, they regard Nelson [with] a good deal of amusement, asking, `Where is the man who buys good-for-nothing things?' Nelson was instructed to gather information and to make collections relating to this little-known region of Alaska. Nelson observed that the people living here were amongst the most primitive people found in Alaska and retained their ancestors' customs and their character. They present one of the richest ... fields open to the ethnologist anywhere in the North. They retain ... their complex system of religion, festivals and other ceremonies from ancient times. Their work in ivory and animal bones, evidence of great skill, and all their weapons and utensils were made well." MR. PETER continued, "He made efforts to learn their language, record their myths and legends, games and ceremonies, touching also on their political and social organizations. ... He came to his observations of Alaska Natives likewise with the same (indisc.) eye and fair perceptions exhibited in his descriptions of Alaska's ... land and animals. During the years from 1916 through 1927, he was a constant advocate of wildlife conservation, fostering bird- banding programs, and became a key figure in negotiating leading to the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and is still (indisc.) legislation (indisc.) and the history of wildlife conservation in North America. His interest in Alaska continued throughout his life. He was instrumental in passage of the Alaska game law of 1925 and helped develop policies to improve conditions for domestic reindeer in Alaska." MR. PETER stated, "In the summer of 1982, community members of Tuluksak noted that the Tuluksak River water was starting to be polluted. We found the cause of the problem, and the people of Tuluksak reported the water quality problem to the Department of Fish and Game." He said the agency and the community "set down" the placer mining company. In 1986, a report was written by James N. Fadden (ph) of the Department of Political Science at the University of Alaska Fairbanks. The report was titled, "Placer Mining and Salmon Habitat: Subsistence as a Policy Problem." MR. PETER continued, "In the second paragraph he wrote, `The purpose of the research project was to examine the value basis for a conflict between economic development and subsistence use. By value, I mean the things that people view as important to them. I described the beliefs and values of people involved in this controversy but do not examine the extent to which the facts comprising the issue support those values. This must be left for a more extended study of the problem. Looking at the beliefs at work in the conflict, however, is important. The way the people view a problem plays a critical role in forming a political atmosphere in which policy decisions are made.'" MR. PETER said "the Alaska National Interest Conservation Act of 1980, also known as Alaska lands act" is a restoration act of the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act of 1971. He read from it, with a few minor word changes: "... Congress finds and declares that the continuation of the opportunity for subsistence use by rural residents of Alaska, ... including both Natives and non-Natives, on the public land and by Alaska Natives on their Native lands is essential to their physical, economic, traditional and Native culture existence; (2) the situation ... in Alaska is unique in that, in most cases, no practical alternative means are available to replace the food supplies and other items gathered from fish and wildlife which supply persons dependent on subsistence use; [(3)] continuation of the opportunity for subsistence use of resources on public and other lands in Alaska is threatened by the increasing population of Alaska ...; "(4) in order to fulfill the policies and purposes of the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act and as a matter of equity, it is necessary for the Congress to invoke its constitutional authority over Native affairs and its constitutional authority under the property clause and the commerce clause to protect and preserve the opportunity for continued subsistence use on the public lands ... by Natives and non-Native rural residents; [and (5)] the national interest in the proper regulation, protection, and conservation of fish and wildlife on public lands in Alaska and continuation [of] that opportunity for a subsistence way of life by the inhabitants of Alaska requires that an administrative structure be established for the purpose of enabling people who have personal knowledge of local conditions and requirements [to have] a meaningful role in the management of fish and game and of subsistence use on the public lands in Alaska." MR. PETER concluded by saying the primary purpose of the Alaska lands act was to "conserve fish and wildlife populations and habitat in their natural diversity." It was to fulfill international treaty obligations of the United States with respect to fish and wildlife, fish and game, and their habitats, to provide opportunities for continued subsistence use by the local residents. Number 467 ANDY SHARP came forward to testify in Yup'ik. The interpreter stated: "This is Andy Sharp from Quinhagak. In Yup'ik, his name is (Indisc.). He stated that he was anxious to see you as a committee, was curious to see what you are ... comprised of, as legislators. He was born in Quinhagak. He's 76 years old and perhaps an elder to all of you committee members. He says that he remembers the earlier legislators and had respect for them, because I guess on the campaign trail they'd bring trinkets and sweets and ... were good to the constituents here. "He says his ancestors, his predecessors, are Yup'ik, as we are all Yup'ik now. We subsist on our traditional foods, the stink heads, the akutaq, the seal oil. And a lot of the foods, the traditional foods that we (indisc.), we and the Yup'ik, the people that first made contact here, ... the missionaries, ate of this food as well. He said that ... he thought at the time that they were very wealthy people, but now that he looks back, they were not, because they consumed a lot of the same foods that he eats here. "Mr. Sharp said that ... he is not anxious to speak, or adamant to speak in front of you as a body regarding his concerns. He has ... a minimal education, although he has not completed any grades. In the past, he has worked as a miner, when mining was first introduced into this area. And with his limited education, he has been able to discern what little orders, short as they may be, ... were given to him by ... the miners that were here. You, as English-speakers, are hearing a lot of what we, as Yup'ik speakers, are saying, and vice versa, with this medium of, I guess translation is ... what he's referring to, by people that do not (indisc.)." TAPE 97-58, SIDE A Number 001 [A portion of Mr. Sharp's Yup'ik testimony was cut off by the tape change.] The interpreter stated: "Andy stated that he grew up with his grandmother. His grandfather, although they didn't have the means of transport to take him ... to check his fish traps or his (indisc.--sound cut out) business that he was doing. And ... amongst this travel, he died at some point in Bristol Bay. He stated that although ... they were limited as far as, like I said, means of travel, these early people traveled extensively, since ... the lifestyle was seasonal. And as a ... younger person, he was aware of reindeer and used to hear of ... the caribou herds. The reindeer with the short antler is called the (indisc.). And these are becoming abundant in this area at this point. And their harvest is now regulated through season, and now we are not allowed to harvest them on the side. ... "... He came from a family of boys. He recollects the grandmother telling the family, in his words, to quit screwing around or playing around, and for simply laughing. For recreation as children, they didn't have much. ... They played tag, football. ... But those people that came in first from the outside, ... the first were the missionaries, followed by the teachers and then the miners. And although they were few in numbers, to them at that time, these miners came in large force. "The message he wanted to give with the recollecting what his grandmother used to say was that we need to think once in awhile. We need to meditate. And ... as he understands it, that is the message for the essence of your visit here, to collect ... some of the testimony and to meditate on what you hear and to return this message back to where the decisions or the laws or the legislation is made. And we, on this side, as your constituents, need to do the same. "He wanted to mention the long-held tradition of not (indisc.) fish or game on top of the land but to vary it and respect or in reverence ... to the resource. He also mentioned ... the sports fishermen and kind of made ... a comparison to our tradition of not throwing away game. And where he's from, Quinhagak, there's a lot of sports fishing activity that goes on in that area. He says he's appalled at the wanton waste of the fish that is done ... by the sports fishermen. And with the wildlife refuges and the prospect of the federal takeover of navigable waters and ... the fish and the game in these areas, he made mention of that. And ... as an example, he used the brown bear as diminishing for ... a game source that in the past had disappeared but came back, because there was some activity or some talk on why this species was disappearing. He thinks that it was due to the recreational activity, or the abundance of it, in that area that scared ... these bears away. "And finally, in regard to ... these bears, he mentioned the tagging of some of these game animals, and the bears in particular, how the cat or dogs or people in this area, he recalls three ... instances where there have been bear attacks. And he's attributing ... this occurrence to some of the tagging that's going on, because even animals, he says, do not forget where they have been abused. Number 184 The interpreter explained that the last segment regarded elders. Mr. Sharp had referred to a time when the world was "thin," when the earth's resources were plentiful. Although perhaps not meant literally, things "used to move on their own, as needed." For example, a woman would walk out of the sod house or dwelling, forgetting the honey bucket, which would then come forth as if in response to that need. Or one might need a match to light a fire. When one said they needed an instrument, it would materialize. The interpreter concluded, "And finally, he stated that he thanks you for this opportunity but does not see ... the top-most point in your hierarchy; the Governor is not here. And that's all he had." Number 224 REPRESENTATIVE IVAN pointed out that one of Mr. Sharp's comments had been overlooked. He reported, "Just before his closing, he stated that in his review of the history, this has been our land. And he referred to that we should be governing it. And we haven't consented to giving it away." Number 234 DARIO NOTTI came forward to testify. He mentioned a comment that he believed may have come from Dick Bishop, "something to the effect that, `if they want subsistence, let them have it, but let them do it in the old ways: no more snow machines, no more guns.'" MR. NOTTI recounted some family history. His grandparents had lived a subsistence lifestyle, but his father was sent away to school and never made it back to where he was born. Mr. Notti himself was born five years before statehood. By then, there were laws saying children had to go to school. No more could they go way up to the mountains for spring camp, then float down when the fish got there, into the main rivers. To live the subsistence lifestyle, they had to send their children away to school. To stay with their children, they had to stay where the schools were, which is what his father chose to do. Fortunately, because of the Hootch case, schools were built in the villages. No longer did people have to make a choice, because they could live a subsistence lifestyle and be where the schools were. However, children still can't spend a whole spring away from the village. Too often, subsistence is limited to weekends or perhaps a week taken away from school. MR. NOTTI explained that they need gasoline-powered equipment in order to travel at higher speeds. They can't spend the whole spring or summer in one camp, as their great-grandparents and grandparents did. "But still, I live a subsistence lifestyle," he said. "My son subsistence hunts, and hopefully my great- grandchildren will be subsistence hunting. Of course, it will never be like it was, at least as long as we have to be where a school is. It will always be a slightly altered subsistence lifestyle. But who knows, with the Internet and satellite communications, ... maybe my grandchildren ... won't have to stay around the village where the school is." He emphasized that even though there had been changes, subsistence is still a way of life. Number 342 CO-CHAIRMAN HUDSON said it makes him wish to spend considerable time out there moose hunting and doing similar activities as well. Although his children are grown, he has grandchildren. He stated, "I think you express a feeling that is highly desired and has great value to the human soul." REPRESENTATIVE DYSON asked for confirmation that Mr. Notti wasn't asking that compulsory education be eliminated. MR. NOTTI clarified that he didn't want for compulsory education to be done away with. "It might be nice if a teacher was willing to follow us to wherever the subsistence camp was," he added. "But I think that's unlikely." Number 362 ANASTASIA HOFFMAN came forward to testify. She spoke briefly in Yup'ik, following which she read from prepared testimony in English: "I think it is important to understand what one is saying when we say we live a subsistence lifestyle. I would like you to take a moment and think how often you all, within one week, eat subsistence foods. In the rural areas, people eat subsistence food on a daily basis. Using myself as an example, this week I ate dried pike fish, herring eggs with seal oil, akutaq, crane soup, moose spaghetti and caribou soup. And I did not know you were all coming today, so it wasn't preplanned. This menu is representative of many families in this area and throughout rural Alaska. Subsistence is a daily reality for us. "Whenever my mother would travel from Bethel to Anchorage or to the Lower 48, without a doubt she would bring with her a bag of dry fish. She couldn't be without it, not even for a short weekend. If you conducted a survey in rural schools, asking students to tell you what they ate for dinner, overwhelmingly the students would say soup. And it is not Campbell's soup or Dinty Moore. It is fish soup, goose soup, moose soup, caribou soup, seal soup and duck soup. "Subsistence food does not only provide sustenance but also nutrients that people will not find in the local village stores. If any one of you walk around a store in a rural village, you will not see an abundance of fruits or vegetables. You will not see meat and poultry. If rural people did not have subsistence, village families and children would live on Pilot Bread and Minute Rice. "Let's think for a minute why villages are where they are. People settled in these areas because of fish and game, for survival. They needed the subsistence resources to live. The villages were not settled by accident. They are each strategically located for a particular type of subsistence resource, be it fish, berries, waterfowl or game. So, we can say that if there were no subsistence resources, there would be no villages. ... We are here as a result of subsistence. We remain as a result of subsistence. "I think the majority of people in Alaska, rural and urban, support a rural preference because they understand the reliance rural people have on subsistence resources. This issue has only come about as a result of a few people who felt deprived. But I know that if those few people came to the villages and saw how much we in rural Alaska relied on subsistence, they too would agree that there is a need for a rural preference. Thank you for coming and thanks for listening." Number 450 BONNIE KOWCHEE came forward to testify, speaking first in Yup'ik. In English, she said she was born and raised in Bethel. She stated, "I was brought up in two worlds, very confusing. It was confusing to be in the White man's world, but I was still brought up very traditional, and I was given the gift to be brought up to know my identity, to who I am, and ... who I am is because of my upbringing. I was also encouraged to go to college, and I am a social worker by profession. But right now, I'm a mom; I just had a baby. ... I'm very nervous, but I want to speak from my heart because I grew up on the land, and since I was very small, ... even though I was brought up in this (indisc.) little city, I was taught to respect my elders, to respect the food that was given, and to always thank the Lord for the food." Ms. Kowchee read from a prepared statement: "What is subsistence to me? Subsistence sustains us Native people, physically, spiritually and mentally. Subsistence is not a word but a way of life. My whole life has evolved around subsistence. Much of my fond memories growing up have been living a subsistence life. As a child, with my mom towering over me, walking on the spongy tundra was where I got my first wild eggs. It was a rite of passage for me. A feast was then given in that honor of gathering from the land. "Then, when I became a young lady, my dad trapped squirrel for my ... fur parka, thus signifying the rite of passage in becoming a woman. The parka, in addition, displays family crests and stories of a long time ago. Just recently, my two nephews caught their first catches; giving the food to elders is also another indication of rites of passage to manhood. Feasting is yet to occur. "My husband, who is Inupiaq, from White Mountain, learned this country for the past eight years, just recently caught a moose. The catch was shared with those in need of food. Elders, especially, with their elated eyes, warmed our hearts as well as theirs. "Physically, throughout the seasons we gather food. The food is not only for consumption but for clothing in the harsh environment we live in. Spring, summer, fall and winter we physically get our food. We walk and exercise, making our bodies one with the land, for the land and the people are one. "Spiritual aspects are evident by respecting all living things on the land. For example, when my husband caught a bear, he buried the head, pointed it from where it originated from, thanked God. The spirit of the bear then released the spirit back to its homeland. Many other rituals such as this occur when food is caught from the land. So, it is not just food. It has spiritual aspects. "Mentally, subsisting off the land brings a silent peace within ourselves. It is therapeutic to live the way of life we do. We are busy, engulfed, [and] we focus on the task on hand, forgetting the worldly issues. Subsistence is not only for consumption but has vital elements such as the physical and spiritual and mental aspects. ... And it is more than a way of life. It defines who we are, our identity, our livelihood and our existence. And I thank you for letting me speak, and God bless you at the task at hand. And I hope you remember that subsistence isn't just a word. It's who we are. It defines us, who we are." Number 557 JAMES A. PETER came forward to testify in Yup'ik. The interpreter stated: "This is James Peter from Bethel. He started out by saying he just became aware of this public hearing this afternoon; otherwise, he would have been here earlier. He says that since way back, we've been dealing with the subsistence issue through the years but have not come to a resolution. As a Yup'ik people, this subsistence, as many have stated, is a lifestyle. And in doing so, sharing has been a big part of it. It is a Yup'ik tenet that has been passed down for generations, to share resources, fish and game ... that is harvested. He also wanted to show his gratitude for Representative Ivan. Since legislators have started under the state system, he hears of Senators that are there but ... personally does not see some fruits or ... some things that are done that might benefit the people here. In particular, he wants to thank Representative Ivan for ... the openings for the caribou season that occurred last winter." Number 650 REPRESENTATIVE IVAN responded briefly in Yup'ik. Number 660 MR. PETER continued in Yup'ik. [The beginning of the translation was cut off by the tape change.] TAPE 97-58, SIDE B Number 001 The interpreter stated [begins mid-speech]: "... managers that came within his time, they were situated at the mouth of the Kuskokwim and monitored and oversaw the harvest of fish. But this occurred only ... in the mouth of the river. And at that time, there were no limits as to ... harvesting. But at this day and age, not only for fish alone but for other game as well, there are limits on the harvest. That's all he has." Number 023 GARY VANASSE came forward to testify. He thanked the committee for conducting these meetings and said he wished the Senate would follow suit. He stated: "I think subsistence should be further defined. I think sport should be defined. Does the fact that I enjoy my hunting and fishing trip that I intend to take next week make me a sport hunter? I don't think so. I don't know what a sport looks like. I don't know what a sport tastes like. I don't know if you can shoot bulls or cow sports. I'm not a sport hunter, and I never have been a sport hunter. I've left many a rack out in the field. Many people take them; some of us don't. If I happen to get a pretty one, I will take it. But most important, I am out there for the need. "The other thing I hear that really distresses me a lot is I hear people - whether they intend to or not, I do not know - turn this into a Native-versus-non-Native issue. That disappoints me immensely. I am a "Gussak." I live in a Native land; that's obvious. My wife is also a Gussak. One of my children is a Gussak; one of my children is a Native. In our household, we don't see each other as being any different. We eat the same foods at the same table. Those foods come from our freezer. You can call it subsistence, you can call it sport, you can call it whatever you choose. Sustenance is probably a better word. "I think that subsistence is not really as much of an issue as we think it is. The only time it becomes ... an issue is in declining resources. If we have low populations, subsistence takes priority. I believe that should be the case. If we don't have those low resources, it's a non-issue. It's a non-problem. Because if we're going to have seasons, seasons are to protect the resource. And I happen to think the Alaska Department of Fish and Game, with rare exception, does an exceptional job of protecting the resource. You can ask these elders. Ask. The lower Yukon did not have moose 40 years ago, you know. ... Read ... Sidney Huntington's (ph) book, `Shadows on the Koyukuk.' That is an amazing book. I'd also like to point out that Mr. Huntington, as most of you probably know, is of mixed blood, that many, many years ago, we had people other than Natives here. This is not recognizing the fact the Natives are the original indigenous peoples of this land. That is true. I do believe that. "But the subsistence issue and the taking of fish and game and other resources for sustenance is an Alaskan issue. It's not a Native issue. It's not a Gussak issue. It's not an urban-versus- rural issue. It's an Alaskan issue. If the federal government comes here and takes over, it will no longer be an Alaskan issue. I have a real problem with that. I know many people are advocating federal takeover. I think that not all of us realize what's going to happen if that happens, the bad effects of that. "I'd like to point out the emergency order that the gentleman just pointed out on caribou season. There's been a large influx of Mulchatna caribou herd coming into Bethel, been over a hundred years since they've seen it. Four years ago, they had an emergency order season. They opened it up. They said, `You can take these caribou. They're here. They're an ... overly abundant resource.' The federal government, as most of us know, or will find out, doesn't react that fast. They can't, for whatever reason. They're mired down in paperwork probably. "I believe that subsistence is alive and well and practiced daily. I see it all the time, as the gentleman pointed out earlier, you know. (Indisc.) subsistence foods. I believe that. You see it. You go anywhere out in this region, certainly, and anywhere in rural Alaska, for that matter, and it's true. And I practice it also. ... I believe that subsistence needs to be protected. I think it might need some regulation and some definition. "Subsistence doesn't necessarily mean to me that, `Oh, we don't have a season; we get whatever we want, whenever we can and however we can.' I don't believe in that. I believe in, number one, protecting the resource, managing the resource for the maximum sustained yield. It means `enough for everybody.' There are more people and more efficient methods than ever before. We all know that. Taking of game is easier than it ever has been. There's a need to consider those things, even when ... we come up with regulations on subsistence. But we can do that. We can come up with regulations ... for subsistence, as well as we can for sport hunting and sport fishing. We can do that as a state, as a people. "When the federal government takes over, we'll lose that control. There's going to have a lot of influence on the federal government that's going to come from outside the state, outside this area. And a lot of decision-making will be made by people and people's constituencies that are not affected at all by this. If we keep this control within the state, ... I think ... the Governor's task force is probably a good place to start. But I see a lot more work to be done. Keep it in the state. We'll hash it out. We'll fight it out. We'll figure it out. We'll write regulations. But let's not lose it, because if the federal government takes over, every single Alaskan has lost. And I truly believe that. Thank you." Number 104 CO-CHAIRMAN HUDSON said that concluded testimony from those speaking locally. He again took testimony by teleconference. NICK O. NICK testified via teleconference, first in Yup'ik and then in English. He said there are many religions; everyone has a religion, one way or the other. Even United States money says, "In God We Trust." He was encouraging everyone present to pray to the higher authority, to ask God for help in guiding members, as overseeing of other people is a stressful occupation. MR. NICK explained that he grew up without his father, a full Yup'ik Eskimo who was successful despite lack of formal education, even kindergarten. His father had traveled to Washington, D.C., where he met Congress members, and Mr. Nick assumed he also met the President of the United States. MR. NICK emphasized that as a child, he'd always been taught by his elders and his mother to not waste anything. Now, he encourages his relatives to respect Mother Nature and to not pollute water, for example. He believes things are getting out of control in this day and age, and there needs to be some kind of control. He spoke of the Bible, the Creator, respect for elders, respect for Mother Nature and trying to reach a resolution with unity. Number 240 REPRESENTATIVE IVAN, who had to catch an airplane at 8 p.m., thanked Co-Chairman Hudson and members of the committee for holding the hearing in Bethel and said he'd like them to also consider one in Dillingham. He said this had been a learning experience even for himself, as far as the historical aspect, the testimony and some of the good recommendations made. He concluded, "I thank you for the opportunity, and we'll keep in touch and try to resolve this issue that's so important to all of us." CO-CHAIRMAN HUDSON reminded members to take their committee packets to Ketchikan for that hearing. Number 273 KATHLEEN POLTY testified via teleconference from Pilot Station. Originally from Aniak, she'd grown up "living in subsistence" with her parents. In the summers, she'd go to her grandparents', where she watched them prepare and store food for the winter. She also lived in Aniak with her uncles, who did subsistence both summer and winter. To her and her family, subsistence is putting away and storing food for the winter. In addition, her husband must be able to hunt moose during the winter because they don't always have money for store-bought meat. Even though her daughter lives in the city, Ms. Polty still brings or sends her subsistence foods. It is important to be able to continue to subsistence hunt and fish in her area. CO-CHAIRMAN HUDSON asked how long dried fish and meat last. MS. POLTY explained that they obtain and prepare fish in the spring and summer, smoking it for two to three weeks until dried. They put away their dried fish in buckets and store it in a cool place or in the freezer for the winter. She puts away five or six gallon buckets of dried fish; that lasts all winter. Number 350 REPRESENTATIVE NICHOLIA commented that dried fish or meat is a delicacy. She stated, "Our dried fish could last probably a year and still be good, but it is so good that is doesn't last that long." She expressed appreciation for Ms. Polty's testimony. Number 380 ROBERT NICK testified via teleconference from Nunapitchuk. He noted that the menu described for the week by his niece, Anastasia Hoffman, is the menu of most households. "It is delicious," he stated. "It is the menu in my home. I'm sure it is the menu in many homes in village Alaska. And it is for that that I'm calling, for the rural village." He stated support for a rural preference. He'd also like the legislature to "initiate the rural initiative vote." He stated, "I understand that that is possible as early as 1998." MR. NICK spoke of a hypothetical village with a population of 300 or 400, which would support itself by fishing in the summer and winter, as well as hunting game in the winter. He said most of important of all is the family bond. He explained, "When we gather our fish, we share it with others. We know that we have enough until the next season." He indicated that wouldn't be possible without the subsistence activity. They share fish from the rivers and food from the land with others. In contrast, someone working in a cash economy or on welfare doesn't share with others in need. "Because subsistence to us is a bond, a family bond," he said. "And without it, it would not be a community." MR. NICK said in the interests of the Alaska Natives, they talk about unity. He said the state Department of Fish and Game has done a good job in regulating the resource use. He said, "Come October 1, if we lose state control, I don't think we'll be able to do a lot of things that we do today, like emergency openings." He encouraged the legislature to champion the cause of Alaska Natives and the wishes of those who use the resources the most. Number 505 CO-CHAIRMAN HUDSON said he shared the concern over the loss of management. "I'm convinced there will be subsistence," he added. "And those who truly need it, and for all the good reasons that have been stated here this evening, ... it will continue in one form or another. But I always worry a little bit when we trust the management of the resources to those who, in many cases, come to Alaska as a part of their federal job for the last three years to garner a high salary in order to retire early-on, ... and whose advocacy and whose loyalty, in the most part, relates to their service or to their agency, whereas any agent of Alaska's loyalty should be with Alaskans ...." Number 534 JOHN PHILLIP testified via teleconference from Kongiganak. He spoke at length in Yup'ik. [The beginning of the translation, relating to the subsistence lifestyle, was cut off because of the tape change.] TAPE 97-59, SIDE A Number 001 Interpreter Trim Nick stated [begins mid-speech]: "... were his, since he had traditionally occupied and used that area. And ... his grandfather had stated that they would be his as he grew up, and for his grandchildren ... when their time came. And his grandfather had also ... told him to pass on this knowledge to his children. This freedom to hunt on the rivers, on the Kongiganak River, because his grandfather is the founder of that village, in the coastal area, in the bay surrounding their village, the tributaries, he was told that these lands and waterways, these rivers, were open for these people to harvest for food. "He said there is no end to subsistence in our lifestyle, whether it be summer or winter. It is an ongoing event. And he also described the ... hardships involving ... hunting and fishing, especially in the traditional sense. Those in winter that sought food in times of shortage many times suffered frostbite in the face. A lot of times, they were ugly and unsightly to look at because their faces were frostbitten, their hands, their feet. ... But regardless of these, they were relentless in their ... efforts to provide food for the families in their community. "He stated that we follow these resources because fish and game is not stationary; they move around. And since they are migratory, we should have open access to where they are in our state, regardless of whether they are within the vicinity of the village or elsewhere. He stated that the women, the Yup'ik women, in the traditional sense are no different from the men in this subsistence lifestyle. They collect the ... wild grains and berries and plants. Regardless of fatigue, whether they were wet, they battled the elements to gather ... these fruits. "In regards to subsistence, Mr. Phillip stated that Alaska, our state, for us, the Native people, is like a bowl of food, no matter where you are or where you're from. And into the moose hunting, as we are now in the moose hunting season, he described the efforts that the men of our villages ... are undertaking with these week- long trips up the rivers in search of the moose, whether they run out of food ... in the effort, because they are hunting for the family, for the community. ... With shortages in the winter months ..., that is ... the activity that is occurring right now. "He also mentioned food. The subsistence lifestyle ... is not only a food source but a source of kinship, of family and community. And for ... those of us, ... it's a lifestyle for us. It's a value, a Yup'ik value to share, and, he mentioned, especially for those in the community that cannot hunt or fish for themselves, those are some of the people that this lifestyle provides for. "In closing, he stated that this west coast part of the state is especially an area where ... this lifestyle is predominant, from our area to the north (indisc.) to Bristol Bay. He is grateful for ... the legislators and the lawmakers that have been working on this issue. And he, in closing, is grateful for ... the clause in ... ANILCA that, as it is written now and as it is imposed, because it has language that ... protects subsistence in ... whatever way it does, as he understands it. ..." Number 070 GREGORY ANELON testified via teleconference from Newhalen. [Some of his testimony was indiscernible on tape due to poor sound quality.] He fishes in Bristol Bay and is also a subsistence harvester. He suggested the state has a "lack of spirit" to oversee subsistence activity in the (Indisc.) region. He said the Kvichavak River, historically the mother lode for the Bristol Bay fishing industry, has been "going down." In the past two years, the run in the (Indisc.) area has been down, influencing subsistence activities. MR. ANELON reported that two or three years before, the Anchorage newspaper carried an article about Nondalton and the Lake Clark area, relating to how people had to go below their village to harvest fish needed for winter. "And then yet, the State of Alaska says that ... they met their goals," he said. "They were always looking at the harvest ability, rather than escapement goals. And toward the end, the subsistence activity has also been down." MR. ANELON explained that after commercial fishing, he participates in subsistence activities. The money from fishing enables him to fully participate in subsistence, which requires a lot of money and is a different economy all its own. He believes putting a definition on people who are subsistence users is ludicrous. He explained that it requires boats, which are costly, as well as gasoline. If people didn't work to provide those boats, the communities would not benefit. "We need the fish, and we need the economy," he stated. "I hope that the legislature can find another means of defining the people in rural Alaska. It seems like we're always the last to -- we're at the bottom of the draw already with (indisc.) uses." MR. ANELON continued, "And to have a rural preference will enable us to participate in that, to provide food for our families at a time when there is ... a little resource available. We're only an hour's flight from Anchorage. And right now, with the moose/caribou season open, there's planes flying all over the place here, over here and Lake Iliamna. And we'd just like to have a preference (indisc.) that the resources are low, that we do not (indisc.) under us the food that we gather around here. Most of the economy in rural Alaska can also help the economy in the state of Alaska." He said he hoped the legislature can have foresight and notice that "the subsistence activity in rural Alaska ... has a base in the economy." He thanked the committee for the opportunity to participate. Number 125 CO-CHAIRMAN HUDSON thanked Mr. Anelon and advised listeners that the hearing portion was concluded; everyone who had indicated a desire to testify had done so. He said the committee recognized that every seat in the building would likely have been filled except that many people were subsistence hunting for moose and caribou. He expressed respect and appreciation for that. He suggested that perhaps by having a smaller crowd, there may have been higher-quality input because more lengthy testimony was possible. "And we're pleased that we were able to afford that opportunity," he said. CO-CHAIRMAN HUDSON thanked committee members, Senator Hoffman and Representative Ivan, noting that Representative Ivan has been a powerful advocate on behalf of the people from that region "at the caucus and the assemblies that I sit in, in all cases representing your best interest." He stated, "We're in a democratic process here in Alaska. It's provided to some extent; we always look high to the constitution as sort of the solid rock on which our statehood and our common existence is built .... Hearings like this provide those of us who have to listen to the debate on both sides of the issue an opportunity to be more aware. To be able to look you in the face, to listen to your voice, to see the sincerity that you show and reflect is very, very important." CO-CHAIRMAN HUDSON continued, "As I said earlier, we intend to take the written and the oral testimony presented here today, and try to summarize it in a realistic form and make the presentation to the Speaker of the House, the President of the Senate, and the members of the legislature, the House and the Senate, because the Senate, even though they couldn't be here, have indicated that ... they wanted ... this hearing to go forward. So, at this time, the committee will adjourn its business, and we will reconvene on Friday, the 12th, in Ketchikan, for our Southeast regional subsistence hearing. We'll be doing essentially the same thing down there." Co-Chairman Hudson asked whether there were closing comments. Number 168 REPRESENTATIVE NICHOLIA thanked Speaker of the House Gail Phillips and Co-Chairman Hudson for taking the initiative for this hearing on subsistence. She said the testimony was valuable and of good quality, eloquently spoken from the heart and mostly from experience; in some cases, that experience was from 60 or more years. She stated that this is a crucial issue, and she assured listeners that their comments would be taken seriously, acknowledging the importance of subsistence for the lifestyle that the area's residents lead. She said she looked forward to hearing from people, including those who hadn't testified, whether it was in writing or through another teleconference. CO-CHAIRMAN HUDSON thanked Nelson Davies for a marvelous job in putting together this patchwork for communications, as well as for showing the committee around Bethel, which he believes was invaluable in visiting the community. He thanked Amy Daugherty for providing the committee with the required administrative support. He also thanked the translators and praised them for their work, indicating he'd never worked with anyone better, even in travels in the Soviet Far East. He also thanked Ted Popely and Ron Somerville for attending, and thanked those people who had allowed use of the great facility. He commented on how much the committee had enjoyed their stay in Bethel. (There was a round of applause.) Number 217 REPRESENTATIVE GREEN commented that with such a contentious and potentially inflammatory subject, he was extremely impressed with the decorum of those who'd testified on this sensitive issue. He stated, "In addition to the information that you gave us, your attitude was so refreshing that I think every member of the committee certainly appreciates the fact that you said what you had to say, but you said it in such a gentlemanly and ladylike way that we are very, very impressed. Thank you." Number 230 REPRESENTATIVE DYSON said he too was impressed, in a way he couldn't describe, with the importance of these issues on a spiritual and cultural level. He noted that many folks have not been happy with the service that the state has provided and the relationship in the past. He said, "And I'm disappointed with that and I'm sorry for that. We can't change the past, and we all want to work towards the future." He also noted that several people had expressed displeasure that the legislators hadn't participated in the RurAL CAP discussions the previous spring in Juneau and the AFN conference in Anchorage. He stated, "And most of us did not get the invitations to go there. And whoever is inviting legislators to participate in the future, I'd really encourage you to send the invitations to everyone, because sometimes if you just send it to our leaders, it doesn't get to everyone. I, for one, would have been delighted to be there and been glad to have been invited. And thank you for the hospitality." REPRESENTATIVE JOULE stated, "All day long, we've heard about the concept of sharing. And to give you a little bit of ... where that goes, when a young person catches his first game, her first, and they go out and give it to people who are no longer able to go out, when our children were going to this rite of passage that somebody referred to, I would watch the exchange that would occur between the elders and my children. And what I observed, it took a few years for it to sink in. But what I ended up observing was that not only did you give them food to eat, but in the conversation, it also allowed them - because they were no longer able to go out - the ability to revisit old stomping grounds. And through their mind's eye, they went through that hunt again. And again the spirit of that animal and that hunt was passed on from the young person, who thanked the spirit of that animal and the Creator for that gift, to the elder, who not only thanked the child but also, again, that animal and the Creator for the gift of sharing, so that it would go on. ... And I just wanted to make sure that those connections were there, because sometimes, you know, we can take trips and never leave the barn. ... There's a couple of you that are elders that sat here all day today. I'm glad you were here. ... It was really good. And I look forward to the hearings as they continue. Thank you." Number 289 REPRESENTATIVE WILLIAMS stated, "I would like to thank you all for your hospitality. I've learned a lot today. My being a Tlingit, I understand how you feel. I feel it here also, that is, subsistence is a lifestyle. I know that. I feel it every day. ... This time of the year, we're taking care of fish, smoking fish, putting what we call stink heads, put it down at half-tide, and we go down and have a party ... on the beach, eat our ... fish heads. Delicious, believe me. I sit there and wash it in the saltwater and eat it right there on the beach, or go up in the smokehouse and bake it." REPRESENTATIVE WILLIAMS continued, "In the wintertime, I feel a little bit more also that the deer hunting and the other kind of living that goes on. Springtime, I look to the fish eggs, herring eggs and king salmon that's coming up. So, I feel the subsistence. I feel the lifestyle. I would hope, and ... like I mentioned before, I think a lot of our people that are very concerned about the constitution and don't want to change the constitution, I don't believe that ... they feel that they want to take away your subsistence lifestyle. I don't believe that's their way of thinking. I think they believe in the constitution. And I would hope that maybe when ANCSA was passed, that we can all talk about how subsistence was negotiated in ANCSA, kind of how the subsistence lifestyle was given to us in that conference report, and they said that the Secretary and the State of Alaska will take care of the subsistence needs of the Alaska Natives. I hope that maybe someone listening can tell me where I'm wrong on that, because that's where I'm coming from." REPRESENTATIVE WILLIAMS continued, "We negotiated that ANCSA. There's a lot of people here that talked about ANCSA and saying that they didn't like it. There's a lot of our people in the Alaska Native community that did not like ANCSA as it was passed, for a lot of different reasons. There's a lot of things there, but it was a negotiated settlement. And I would hope that our experts over there against the wall can help us understand, help this body here understand, the conference report. Everybody says ... that subsistence started in ANILCA. It did not start there. It started in ANCSA. I would hope that we would continue talking that way. I heard just a little bit of it this afternoon. But I would hope that the people here in this area would talk about the conference report in ANCSA and how it was negotiated." Representative Williams concluded with the Tlingit thank-you, "gunalcheesh," adding that his parents, who'd spoken only Tlingit, were punished for that when they went to school. They hadn't wanted him to have the same experience, and he can speak the language very little. Number 362 SENATOR HOFFMAN stated, "On behalf of all the people from Bethel and the Yukon-Kuskokwim delta, I would like to thank you, as the chairman of ... the Resources Committee, for extending not only the time but allowing many members to go well beyond the original two minutes that they were going to have to present. And I think that, as a result, as you said, ... the meaning of what needed to be translated here was done excellently. I would also like to thank Mary Pete, ... the director of the subsistence division; she handed some salmon strips to Reggie Joule, and he cut them up and all of us really enjoyed that snack earlier on this evening. But, you know, throughout my travels, once there was an elder that when we were talking about subsistence, he said that in order for us to benefit from subsistence, we need to take care of the land, because the land is what the animals and the birds, the berries and everything come from. ... The important point that he made to me was that he said we did not inherit this land from our elders. We are simply borrowing this land from our children and our children's children. With that, I hope we are able to resolve the subsistence dilemma and make some headway. Thank you." Number 386 An unidentified man offered the last word. He suggested if legislators were going to make a law for Alaska, they should notify the people before it happens. ADJOURNMENT Number 407 CO-CHAIRMAN HUDSON adjourned the House Resources Standing Committee meeting at 8:44 p.m.