HOUSE RESOURCES STANDING COMMITTEE February 28, 1998 9:07 a.m. MEMBERS PRESENT Representative Bill Hudson, Co-Chairman Representative Scott Ogan, Co-Chairman Representative Beverly Masek, Vice Chair (via teleconference) Representative Ramona Barnes Representative Fred Dyson Representative Joe Green Representative William K. (Bill) Williams (via teleconference) Representative Irene Nicholia (via teleconference) Representative Reggie Joule MEMBERS ABSENT All members present OTHER HOUSE MEMBERS PRESENT Representative Jeannette James COMMITTEE CALENDAR HOUSE BILL NO. 406 "An Act relating to subsistence uses of fish and game." - HEARD AND HELD (* First public hearing) PREVIOUS ACTION BILL: HB 406 SHORT TITLE: SUBSISTENCE USES OF FISH AND GAME SPONSOR(S): RESOURCES Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action 02/12/98 2312 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S) 02/12/98 2312 (H) RESOURCES, JUDICIARY, FINANCE 02/17/98 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 124 02/17/98 (H) MINUTE(RES) 02/21/98 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 124 02/21/98 (H) MINUTE(RES) 02/24/98 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 124 02/27/98 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120 02/27/98 (H) MINUTE(JUD) 02/28/98 (H) RES AT 9:00 AM CAPITOL 124 WITNESS REGISTER WILLIAM MILLER (Address not provided) Telephone: (907) 882-2695 POSITION STATEMENT: Provided testimony in opposition to HB 406. CARL ROSIER, President Territorial Sportsmen Incorporated P.O. Box 20761 Juneau, Alaska 99802 Telephone: (907) 789-2399 POSITION STATEMENT: Provided testimony on HB 406. WEIVER IVANOFF (PH) (Address not provided) Telephone: (Not provided) POSITION STATEMENT: Provided testimony in opposition to HB 406. SIDNEY HUNTINGTON (Address not provided) Telephone: (907) 656-1212 POSITION STATEMENT: Provided testimony on HB 406. POLLOCK SIMON SR. (Address not provided) Telephone: (Not provided) POSITION STATEMENT: Provided testimony on HB 406. WARNER BERGMAN (Address not provided) Telephone: (Not provided) POSITION STATEMENT: Provided testimony on HB 406. JIM REARDEN 413 East Lee Drive Homer Alaska 99603 Telephone: (907) 235-8543 POSITION STATEMENT: Provided testimony on HB 406. ALBERT (Address not provided) Telephone: (Not provided) POSITION STATEMENT: Provided testimony on HB 406. SAMSON HENRY (Address not provided) Telephone: (Not provided) POSITION STATEMENT: Provided testimony on HB 406. GERALD OLDMAN (Address not provided) Telephone: (907) 889-2239 POSITION STATEMENT: Provided testimony in opposition to HB 406. CLIFF JUDKINS, President Alaska Boating Association; Member, Local Advisory Board P.O. Box 871310 Wasilla, Alaska 99687 Telephone: (907) 373-3591 POSITION STATEMENT: Provided testimony in support of HB 406. NOEL WOODS P.O. Box 827 Palmer, Alaska 99645 Telephone: (907) 745-3027 POSITION STATEMENT: Provided testimony on HB 406. ROBERT WILLARD, JR., Representative Alaska Native Brotherhood - Juneau Camp; Member, Executive Committee of the Southeast Native Subsistence Commission 236 3rd Street, Suite A Juneau, Alaska 99801 Telephone: (907) 586-3706 POSITION STATEMENT: Provided testimony on HB 406. RICHARD SLATS, Member Chevak Traditional Council (Address not provided) Telephone: (907) 858-7252 POSITION STATEMENT: Provided testimony in opposition to HB 406. BONNE' THERRIAULT-WOLDSTAD P.O. Box 56702 North Pole, Alaska 99705 Telephone: (907) 488-0232 POSITION STATEMENT: Provided testimony on HB 406. GABE SAM, Director of Wildlife and Parks Tanana Chiefs Conference, Incorporated 122 First Avenue, Suite 600 Fairbanks, Alaska 99701 Telephone: (907) 452-8251 POSITION STATEMENT: Provided testimony in opposition to HB 406. RALPH SEEKINS, Representative Alaska Wildlife Conservation Association (Address not provided) Telephone: (Not provided) POSITION STATEMENT: Provided testimony on HB 406. DICK BISHOP P.O. Box 73902 Fairbanks, Alaska 99707 Telephone: (907) 455-6191 POSITION STATEMENT: Provided testimony on HB 406. BRUCE KNOWLES P.O. Box 873206 Wasilla, Alaska 99687 Telephone: (907) 745-4965 POSITION STATEMENT: Provided testimony on HB 406. KATIE HURLEY P.O. Box 870157 Wasilla, Alaska 99687 Telephone: (907) 376-5736 POSITION STATEMENT: Read a letter by Mary Nordale. ROBERT HALL, Representative Houston Chamber of Commerce P.O. Box 871906 Wasilla, Alaska 99687 Telephone: (907) 892-6555 POSITION STATEMENT: Provided testimony on HB 406. KATHERINE S. MIYASATO, President Alaska Native Sisterhood - Douglas Camp Number 3 525 North Franklin Street Juneau, Alaska 99801 Telephone: (907) 586-3942 POSITION STATEMENT: Provided testimony on HB 406. ERIC MUENCH P.O. Box 6811 Ketchikan, Alaska 99901 Telephone: (907) 225-5372 POSITION STATEMENT: Provided testimony on HB 406. BARBARA JANITSCHECK, Vice President of Traditional Services Maniilaq Association P.O. Box 256 Kotzebue, Alaska 99752 Telephone: (907) 442-3311 POSITION STATEMENT: Provided testimony in opposition to HB 406. WARREN LEWIS (Address not provided) Telephone: (Not provided) POSITION STATEMENT: Provided testimony in opposition to HB 406. TED HAMILTON (PH) (Address not provided) Telephone: (Not provided) POSITION STATEMENT: Provided testimony in opposition to HB 406. MYRON NANENG, President Association of Village Council Presidents Pouch 219 Bethel, Alaska 99559 Telephone: (907) 543-3521 POSITION STATEMENT: Provided testimony in opposition to HB 406. HUBERT ANGAIAK P.O. Box 2071 Bethel, Alaska 99559 Telephone: (907) 543-3074 POSITION STATEMENT: Provided testimony in opposition to HB 406. MICHAEL BOWEN, Chair Local Advisory Committee P.O. Box 953 Cordova, Alaska 99574 Telephone: (907) 424-7616 POSITION STATEMENT: Provided testimony on HB 406. CALEB PUNGOWIYI, Director of Natural Resources Kawerak, Incorporated P.O. Box 948 Nome, Alaska 99762 Telephone: (907) 443-5231 POSITION STATEMENT: Provided testimony on HB 406. PATRICK CHURCH P.O. Box 2080 Homer, Alaska 99603 Telephone: (907) 235-7388 POSITION STATEMENT: Read a statement by Jack Polster. JIM SYKES P.O. Box 696 Palmer, Alaska 99645 Telephone: (907) 338-5551 POSITION STATEMENT: Provided testimony on HB 406. LOREN CROXTON P.O. Box 1410 Petersburg, Alaska 99833 Telephone: (907) 772-3622 POSITION STATEMENT: Provided testimony on HB 406. RON LONG P.O. Box 2464 Seward, Alaska 99664 Telephone: (907) 224-7068 POSITION STATEMENT: Provided testimony on HB 406. NICK SZABO P.O. Box 1633 Kodiak, Alaska 99615 Telephone: (907) 486-3853 POSITION STATEMENT: Provided testimony on HB 406. MORGAN SOLOMON P.O. Box 589 Barrow, Alaska 99723 Telephone: (907) 852-7674 POSITION STATEMENT: Provided testimony in opposition to HB 406. DESA JACOBSSON 236 3rd Street, Number A Juneau, Alaska 99801 Telephone: (907) 463-3902 POSITION STATEMENT: Provided testimony in opposition to HB 406. MARY PETE, Director Division of Subsistence Department of Fish and Game P.O. Box 25526 Juneau, Alaska 99802-5526 Telephone: (907) 465-4147 POSITION STATEMENT: Provided testimony on HB 406. LORETTA BULLARD, President Kawerak, Incorporated P.O. Box 948 Nome, Alaska 99762 Telephone: (907) 443-5231 POSITION STATEMENT: Provided testimony in opposition to HB 406. PERRY MENDENHALL, Member Sitnasuak Native Corporation Board P.O. Box 1141 Nome, Alaska 99762 Telephone: (907) 443-2455 POSITION STATEMENT: Provided testimony in opposition to HB 406. RICHARD ANDREW P.O. Box 7211 Ketchikan, Alaska 99901 Telephone: (907) 225-2463 POSITION STATEMENT: Provided testimony on HB 406. KAY ANDREW P.O. Box 7211 Ketchikan, Alaska 99901 Telephone: (907) 225-2463 POSITION STATEMENT: Provided testimony in support of HB 406. DONALD WESTLAND P.O. Box 78833 Ketchikan, Alaska 99901 Telephone: (907) 225-9391 POSITION STATEMENT: Provided testimony in support of HB 406. MICHAEL PATKOTAK P.O. Box 610 Barrow, Alaska 99723 Telephone: (907) 852-2152 POSITION STATEMENT: Provided testimony in opposition to HB 406. DON SHERWOOD, Board Member Alaska Boating Association 1640 Brink Drive Anchorage, Alaska 99504 Telephone: (907) 333-6268 POSITION STATEMENT: Provided testimony in support of HB 406. CHARLES McKEE P.O. Box 243053 Anchorage, Alaska 99524 Telephone: (Not provided) POSITION STATEMENT: Provided testimony on HB 406. DONNA HARRIS-FLEAGLE, Vice President Tanana Chiefs Conference, Incorporated Box 33 McGrath, Alaska 99627 Telephone: (907) 524-3385 POSITION STATEMENT: Provided testimony in opposition to HB 406. JOHN ELUSKA JR., Representative Shageluk Native Village (IRA) General Delivery Shageluk, Alaska 99665 Telephone: (907) 473-8239 POSITION STATEMENT: Provided testimony in opposition to HB 406. PHILLIP ARROW, Elder Shageluk Native Village (IRA) General Delivery Shageluk, Alaska 99665 Telephone: (907) 473-8239 POSITION STATEMENT: Provided testimony in opposition to HB 406. BART (Address not provided) Telephone: (Not provided) POSITION STATEMENT: Provided testimony on HB 406. DALE BONDURANT H.C. 1, Box 1197 Soldotna, Alaska 99669 Telephone: (907) 262-0818 POSITION STATEMENT: Provided testimony on HB 406. SELINA EVERSON, Subsistence Chair Alaska Native Sisterhood (Address not provided) Telephone: (Not provided) POSITION STATEMENT: Provided testimony on HB 406. SHARON LEE (Address not provided) Telephone: (Not provided) POSITION STATEMENT: Provided testimony on HB 406. ACTION NARRATIVE TAPE 98-20, SIDE A Number 0001 CO-CHAIRMAN SCOTT OGAN called the House Resources Standing Committee meeting to order at 9:07 a.m. Members present at the call to order were Representatives Hudson, Ogan, Dyson, and Green. Representatives Joule and Barnes arrived at 9:08 a.m. and 10:30 a.m., respectively. Representatives Masek, Williams and Nicholia joined the meeting via teleconference at approximately 9:25 a.m., 9:35 a.m. and 10:45 a.m., respectively. HB 406 - SUBSISTENCE USES OF FISH AND GAME CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN announced the only order of business today would be House Bill No. 406, "An Act relating to subsistence uses of fish and game." Number 0110 CO-CHAIRMAN BILL HUDSON stated it is his understanding that Representatives Williams, Nicholia and Joule either are now or intend to be on-line via the teleconference today. Number 0255 CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN referred to a handout titled, "Summary Points - HB 406," and read the following: "1. Establishes that the ability to take fish and game for personal and family use for sustenance is a fundamental right under the Constitution of the State of Alaska. "2. Establishes that the harvest of fish and game for personal and family use for sustenance by residents is the highest and best use of fish and game. "3. Authorizes the Boards of Fisheries and Game to establish fish and game dependent use areas where dependence on fish and game for personal and family use for sustenance is the principal characteristic of the economy and way of life of the area. "4. Authorizes the Board of Fisheries or Board of Game, after determining that a shortage exists, to establish a preference for fish and game dependent uses. "5. In times of shortage, the Boards may require that the flesh or meat of fish and game must be consumed within the region where the fish or game was taken. "6. Defines a dependent fish and game user as one who: possesses a $5 resident hunting, trapping and sport fishing license is dependent on fish and game for personal and family use for sustenance or has no alternative means of sustenance or has decided to adopt a fish and game dependent life style. has consumed a variety of species of fish and game as decided by the Boards has shared fish and game with minimum number of households as established by the Boards "7. Provides for local advisory committee participation in the individual eligibility for a preference within their area. "8. Establishes five regional boards consisting of nine members appointed by the governor and confirmed by the legislature. "9. Requires regulation proposal to go through local advisory committees and newly established regional boards. "10. The regional boards are required to give deference to local advisory committee recommendations and the statewide Boards of Fisheries and Game are required to give deference to recommendations of the regional boards. Several criteria are established to guide when and how recommendations of the advisory committees and regional boards can be overturned or rejected. "11. Provides for non-commercial bartering. "12. Provides a two-year transitional period." REPRESENTATIVE BEVERLY MASEK announced she was present via teleconference. Number 0430 CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN stated the bill is based on the sustained yield principle - Article VIII, Section 4 of the Constitution of the State of Alaska - that reads as follows: "Fish, forests, wildlife, grasslands, and all other replenishable resources belonging to the State shall be utilized, developed, and maintained on the sustained yield principle, subject to preferences among beneficial uses." CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN stated the key element of the citation is "subject to preferences among beneficial uses." In times of shortage, when a resource cannot be sustained, a preference can be given among beneficial uses. This is where he would like to see the discussion remain today. It is in the state and people's best interest. A discussion on equal protection and common use would divide the state, and not provide the necessary healing amongst the people. CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN announced today's hearing is live with radio station KOTZ in Kotzebue. Number 0680 WILLIAM MILLER testified via teleconference in Dot Lake. The village of Dot Lake is one of the many villages in the upper Tanana dependent on the natural renewable resources in the area, not only for subsistence, but for the cultural and conditional benefits they provide as well. The committee substitute does not come close to meeting the needs, much less satisfying the requirements of The Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA). He wonders why no public testimony has been taken or allowed until today. "Why didn't you have public testimony on the Governor's bill before killing it in committee?" he asked. Even though it most likely would not have worked, it is a lot closer than this bill. This bill does not give a rural priority, a major part of ANILCA. The "eat-where-it's-shot" portion does not fit the traditional and cultural ways of the rural villages. The needs-based system also does not address traditional and cultural ways. He wondered what would be the cost to the state to determine these individual subsistence needs based on the requirement for statements to be sent from the advisory committees to the regional advisory boards to the Boards of Fisheries and Game. In addition, by the time all of the required actions were taken, the season would be over or the individual would be dead from a lack of food. The cost would be prohibited for processing the signed and certified written statements. He wondered why the word "subsistence" has been replaced with the word "sustenance." "Does the word 'subsistence' scare the people or does it make you think of all the time and money that has been wasted avoiding this very important rural issue?" he asked. Would not subsistence also be a beneficial use under the state constitution and, therefore, meet the requirements stated earlier? he further asked. The committee substitute was not made available locally until he requested a copy of it on February 26, 1998. He hopes in the future the bill will be available with enough time to make comments, especially before it goes to the floor of the House of Representatives. After a quick review of it, however, 16.16.020 would be almost impossible to enforce or enact. He wonders whether all of the criteria would have to be met under the subsection or just certain ones. The requirement for a person to be dependent on fish and game for personal and family use and the sharing of fish and game resources with a minimum number of households contradicts itself. The bill does nothing to satisfy the cultural and traditional subsistence needs of the rural villages. The first thing he visualized when he got the bill was a hawk swooping down to eat a small shrew, then two shrews appeared and the hawk ate them. This progressed until the hawk was too fat to fly and the shrews killed the hawk. He hopes that there will be future opportunities to testify on the bill after given a chance to digest it. CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN replied there will be future opportunities to testify. There are two more committees of referral - Judiciary and Finance. For the record he noted that there has been over 500 people who testified and 60 hours of hearings, including at least 10 hours by the Administration on the Governor's subsistence task force proposal. There is not a great deal of difference between the proposal and the bill entered. Therefore, the decision not to hear the bill was based on the overwhelming testimony in opposition to the task force proposal in both rural and urban Alaska, though admittedly for different reasons. He intends to make changes to the proposed committee substitute based on the public testimony. Number 1085 CARL ROSIER, President, Territorial Sportsmen Incorporated (TSI), a Juneau-based outdoor recreational organization. The TSI has been active in fish and wildlife conservation and allocation issues since 1947. Our membership numbers approximately 2,000 people mostly from Juneau and Douglas. He has personally been involved with the management of Alaska's fish and game resources since 1955. His last job was as commissioner of the Department of Fish and Game under former Governor Walter J. Hickel. The TSI is pleased to see the legislature once again making the effort to fairly resolve the controversy surrounding the subsistence use of Alaska's fish and game resources. The committee substitute is a good start. The TSI is quite concerned of the Governor's proposal because it would not return management of fish and game to the state, but merely give the authority to implement a state system under the watchful eye of the federal agencies, and ultimately the federal courts in cases of dispute. The proposed implementations were not balanced and would continue to pit one Alaskan against another. A legal analysis of the TSI indicates that the state's right to manage would receive very limited protection with great discretion afforded to a federal judge. The TSI, in seeking a solution, has operated under several principles: conservation of the fish and game resources must be assured in whatever system is ultimately adopted; the basic human right to take fish and game for food must be protected; Alaska's constitutional guarantee of equal standing and common use of resources must be protected; a clear linkage to ANILCA changes in the event of a limited constitutional amendment to narrow a preference to true subsistence users; and the opposition of any harvest preference based on group criteria such as location, culture, race, or ethnicity. MR. ROSIER further stated, of the four communities excluded from the current subsistence priority, according to United States census data, Fairbanks has the lowest median household income at $32,033, while Juneau has the highest at $47,924. There are 197 communities lower than Fairbanks and 120 communities higher on a statewide basis. There are 37 communities above Juneau on a statewide basis of which most are eligible for subsistence - Petersburg, Eyak, Lake Minchumina, Barrow, Chignik Lagoon, Unalaska, King Salmon, Naknek and Polk Inlet. These are just a few examples of unjustified discrimination. Petersburg has a higher median household income than all four communities yet it qualifies as rural. Nanwalek qualifies for a subsistence priority with a median household income at $46,563, while Hope at $17,250, and Moose Pass at $22,083 do not. Copper Center with a median household income at $34,643, Cantwell at $44,000, and McKinley Park at $40,313 qualify for a priority, while Talkeetna at $11,991 does not. Petersburg has a higher median household income, a lower percentage of residents below the poverty level, and a lower percentage of unemployed than Juneau, while it enjoys a subsistence priority and Juneau does not. Unalaska has a $12,000 higher median household income, lower unemployment, and a lower percentage of adults not working than Anchorage, while it enjoys a subsistence priority and Anchorage does not. Naknek has a higher median household income, lower unemployment, and a lower percentage below the poverty level than Anchorage, while it qualifies for subsistence and Anchorage does not. Major communities like Kodiak Station, Wrangell, Haines, Bethel, Kotzebue, Sitka, Dillingham, Nome, Kodiak, Cordova, Craig, Petersburg, Unalaska and Barrow all qualify for subsistence under the rural designation scheme and yet have a higher median household income than Fairbanks. Kodiak has a higher median household income, a lower percentage of people unemployed, and a lower percentage of residents below the poverty line than Anchorage or Fairbanks. Petersburg has a higher median household income, a lower percentage of residents below the poverty line, and a lower percentage unemployed than all four of the communities excluded from subsistence. In conclusion, the committee substitute incorporates some excellent concepts such as the personal use preference for food, reasonable opportunity, and individual criteria for determining dependency in times of a resource shortage. The TSI has some difficulty with the bill's provisions to implement the concepts, but stand ready to work with the committee for a solution. In the final analysis, TSI strongly believes that the people and resources of Alaska would be far better off under a non-incumbered state management program. The TSI also believes that whatever the final solution arrived at by the legislature, if a constitutional amendment is involved, state residents must be afforded the information to determine whether they are in or out, prior to being asked to vote. REPRESENTATIVE BILL WILLIAMS announced he was present via teleconference. Number 1510 REPRESENTATIVE FRED DYSON asked Mr. Rosier what does the state need to do to get out from under federal court supervision and micro- management of its fish and game. Number 1521 MR. ROSIER replied there needs to be changes in the federal law (ANILCA). There needs to be an Alaskan solution then ultimately go after the federal law. If we do nothing but comply with ANILCA, we would be in the same box that we are in now. Number 1548 CO-CHAIRMAN HUDSON stated Mr. Rosier goes back a long time with the subsistence issue and other issues concerning management of natural resources with the state and federal governments. He asked Mr. Rosier who should make the determination of what communities are in or out, the boards or the legislature, for example. Number 1595 MR. ROSIER replied in his view the standards for selection should be made at the legislative level. The agencies should also be involved to help make the determination. Having looked at the board and advisory committee systems for some 40 years, he has not seen a board or advisory committee that could deal with the issue on a fair and equitable basis. Number 1634 CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN asked Mr. Rosier whether he believes the approach of dealing with Article VIII, Section 4, "Sustained Yield," rather than Article VIII, Section 3, "Common Use," is the appropriate place to have this type of discussion. Number 1645 MR. ROSIER replied it is hard to say because he is not an attorney. However, his leanings are toward that approach. Number 1690 WEIVER IVANOFF (PH) testified via teleconference in Unalakleet. He was raised in the area and has been involved in fishery issues since 1980 with the Board of Game. He helped form the Southern Norton Sound Advisory Committee. He is speaking in opposition to HB 406. The approach is inconsistent with Title VIII of ANILCA. It does not recognize the roles of subsistence uses - physical, economical, traditional and cultural. The administration of the needs-based permitting system would be time consuming, unworkable and cost prohibitive. He does not see how this system could lead to future resumption of state management. It does not meet ANILCA's rural priority or change the state constitution. It pretty much guarantees the federal takeover on December 1, 1998. Historically, the Boards of Fisheries and Game take a look at certain areas of Alaska and make cuts to subsistence users. It is the people who live the closest to the resources that get cut when a resource is impacted in an area. The people who depend on the resources to make money are the last ones to get cut. The people who depend on the resources to put food on the table are the first ones to get cut. The personal-use basis would continue that concept causing a lot of distrust and a lack of confidence in the present ongoing system. Number 1862 SIDNEY HUNTINGTON testified via teleconference in Galena. He was born in 1914 and has lived in the Galena area his entire life. He has been using fish and wildlife as his main source of livelihood. He commends Representative Ogan for his efforts as well as other legislators and governors who have worked on the issue for the past 20 years. However, after all of this time the issue has not been solved. The time is coming to solve it once and for all. He has followed what Ted Stevens and Frank Murkowski have said in terms of federal management if we do not pass a rural preference. He spent almost 20 years on the Board of Game dealing with the federal government (feds). It has never kept its promise made to any Indian organization, but it has made good threats. And now it is threatening to take over the subsistence management of fish and wildlife, and it will unless we have a rural preference for subsistence. House Bill 406 does not provide that rural preference. If HB 406 passes and we do nothing else, we will be forcing the feds' hand and it will take over the management. We cannot let this happen. We here in Alaska are small potatoes compared to the number of people in the Lower Forty-Eight with higher profile issues. People outside of the state will have more power over management of our wildlife resources than we will. We must be able to manage our own resources. We lived with a rural preference before McDowell and we can live with it again. It worked then because the Board of Game was involved in making the management decisions. There is nothing to be afraid of with Alaska making the decisions. There is much to be afraid of with the interests of the Lower Forty-Eight making the decisions. Some urban people think they will lose a lot with a rural preference, but they will not. Subsistence use of our resources is a very small part of the fish and game taken. However, if the feds take over management, urban and rural people will stand to lose everything. Millions of dollars and thousands of hours of work have been wasted on this issue with little or no results. Let's solve the big problem by allowing the people to vote on a rural preference, then we can work to solve the smaller problems and go back to management of our state's wildlife resources by the people of Alaska. The only way to solve the issue is to get it out of politics. We have got to work together to solve the issue. We all have selfish desires, but we can all compromise. This is an issue of compromise. Number 2021 CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN stated we have been talking about this issue for 20 years and have been hung up on the rural priority. Most people do not have a problem in a time of shortage for those that truly depend on the resource to have a preference. We have authority under the state constitution to give a preference. He asked Mr. Huntington whether he would be willing to shift the discussion off of the common use clause and over to the sustained yield clause of the state constitution. Number 2056 MR. HUNTINGTON replied, "Okay." But, we almost lost certain fishery resources when the feds managed them before Alaska became a state. Managers of the state's wildlife resources can maintain a sustained yield. The scientists know their business, but spend all of their time on environmental issues and subsistence. Sixty- five percent of the time when he was on the Board of Game was spent trying to solve subsistence issues and dealing with the environmentalists. Number 2103 CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN stated he believes it is because the talk has been about compromising the equal protections. Number 2122 CO-CHAIRMAN HUDSON asked Mr. Huntington whether the term "times of shortage" can be defined in terms of the resources or food on the table. Number 2154 MR. HUNTINGTON replied under federal management there will be shortages of resources more so than under state management. He cannot remember a time when he was on the Board of Game that it did not apply everything towards those living in rural Alaska. Therefore, with good screening and good management, there is a 90 percent chance of success under the sustained yield principle. Number 2260 POLLOCK SIMON SR. testified via teleconference in Allakaket. We used to have a good lifestyle here with the firefighting season and trapping in the winter. Now, that they have let all the fires burn without firefighting much, banned lake-hold traps, and outlawed snares, it is making it tougher for us in winter because we live off of the land. Here in Allakaket we are far off the road and live a subsistence lifestyle. We also do not like dual management. It would not be very good for us because neither agency comes up with enough money for good management to investigate wanton waste, for example. We have had dual management for several years and the legislature has not done anything. It still looks like it will be a few more years before it does anything. He hopes the subsistence dilemma will be solved pretty soon for the rural people who depend on the land. He is starting to lose his trust in the legislators because they have not solved the problem and he is not sure what it will be like in a few years. Number 2365 WARNER BERGMAN testified via teleconference in Allakaket. We live about 75 percent off of the land. Right now, we have a lot of competition with outside hunters for the resources. We would like to see the issue solved with a rural preference because we have to live with the decisions made in Juneau. Look at Indian country, he said. It is getting to the point where we are frustrated with the decisions made by the legislators. Number 2411 CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN asked Mr. Bergman whether he wants a full-time priority, or could he live with a priority/preference in a time of shortage. Number 2441 MR. BERGMAN replied for us in Allakaket we would rather have a full-time preference. TAPE 98-20, SIDE B Number 0000 MR. REARDEN testified via teleconference in Homer. He has been involved in fish and game management in various ways in Alaska for 50 years - a fishery patrol agent, head of the Department of Wildlife Management at the University of Alaska, an area biologist for commercial fisheries for the Department of Fish and Game in Cook Inlet, and a member of the Board of Fish and Game, the Board of Game, and in 1976 President Ford appointed him to the National Advisory Committee on Oceans and Atmospheres. He commends the House Resources committee for putting forth this proposed committee substitute. He endorses the statements made by Carl Rosier. The proposed law would ensure that those dependent on fish and game for food would have every opportunity to take those resources. It does not violate the rights of any Alaskan and establishes a priority when it is needed - in a time of shortage - instead of a full-time priority. It definitely protects rural residents who must have fish and game in order to eat. It achieves the goal that Congress had in mind when it set the rural priority to ensure that rural Alaskan Natives have every opportunity to take fish and game for food. Rural and urban citizens are treated alike, a giant step ahead. The resource would be managed under the constitutionally required sustained yield principle subject to preferences among beneficial uses. The regional boards, as proposed, would give citizens more say on regulations because they would be talking to their neighbors. It would also remove from the Boards of Fisheries and Game the task of attempting to meet the unrealistic goals of the rural priority, the most important aspect of the bill. For 20 years the Board of Game has spent more time attempting to comply with subsistence law than scientifically managing the resources. The board has functioned as a quasi-welfare agency instead of a scientific game management agency. In 1975 he was opposed to splitting the Board of Fish and Game into two boards, but he was wrong. It turned out to be a good move. It reduced meeting times and increased efficiency. The regional boards would allow more input by citizens who are far removed from Anchorage, Fairbanks and Juneau where most of the board meetings take place. They could reduce the work loads of the two primary boards. However, to accomplish that, the regional boards should have regulatory authority along with supervision by the main boards. They would be more efficient with a membership of seven rather than nine. The old Board of Fish and Game increased until there were 12 members and with each increase efficiency dropped. There may be flaws in the proposed committee substitute that will not show up until given a try, but the concept is excellent. It addresses the major problems that have beset the state for 20 years. If it is passed into law at least Alaskans can fine tune it. It would not, however, remove the rural priority of the federal government. But, the Alaskan congressional delegation has said when there is a consensus, they will support it. Thus, if the legislature can develop support for this Alaskan solution, there would be a consensus so that our people in Washington, D.C. would have to support it and present it to Congress as a substitute. He strongly supports the concept of the bill, as well as the legal challenge filed by the Legislative Council committee. If we change our constitution to conform to federal law, we will have gained nothing. We will still be under the thumb of the federal government and forever having to comply with a rural priority, a provision that splits Alaska. There will be no healing if we kowtow to the federal government and change our equal rights clause. We will have to live forever with the divisiveness that the law has created. If the bill and lawsuit do not succeed, only then should we consider changing the constitution. Let's give Alaskans every chance to solve the problem before making an unalterable decision that would leave us forever under the thumb of the federal government. Alaska's legislators, by developing this proposed solution and by filing a lawsuit, at last are taking the action that has been needed for the past 20 years. Number 0251 REPRESENTATIVE MASEK wondered where the money would come from to support the regional boards. The state has been putting some money into the subsistence advisory committees, but there is not a whole lot of money out there. She asked Mr. Rearden to comment. Number 0276 MR. REARDEN replied sure money is a problem. But, compared to the value of the resources and the problems we are facing, the money would become available. He is not a legislator and he does not know where the money comes from, but money is spent on advisory committees all over the state, and for meetings that extend for months for the Boards of Fisheries and Game. Thus, there would be some savings. Number 0337 ALBERT testified via teleconference in Allakaket. He asked whether the bill opens subsistence up to everyone. Number 0402 CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN replied, "No." It establishes a criteria, in a time of shortage, for those with a history or make a decision or have no other means to provide food for their family. Number 0420 ALBERT stated because of the low economy in Alaska the Native people and the rural villages depend a lot on subsistence. But now everyone goes hunting for moose along with the Native people for subsistence. He thinks subsistence should have priority. It is time for the legislators to understand that the Native people in the villages try to put food on the table when the freezer runs out. During moose hunting season there are planes, boats, and trucks coming into the area. We're just having an open season on the animals. We've got to control our animals in the state. This is the last frontier. We're going to run out and be like the Lower Forty-Eight. Number 0490 CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN stated the bill would give a preference to those who live in a dependent use area in a time of shortage to protect their lifestyle. Number 0511 SAMSON HENRY testified via teleconference in Allakaket. Subsistence is a way of life. It is a religious thing. It puts food on the table. A lot of people do not like to get money from the government, they would rather live off of the land. Everybody should oppose HB 406. Number 0564 CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN stated in a time of shortage the criteria would protect the people who live that type of lifestyle. MR. BERGMAN stated now that he has read HB 406 he opposes it. Number 0621 GERALD OLDMAN testified via teleconference in Hughes. He opposes the bill. He opposes the income requirements because there is 70 percent unemployment in rural villages. He opposes the needs-based system. What we harvest is what we need. He opposes opening up subsistence to everybody because the non-Natives are only after the racks. He opposes cultural and traditional rights being eliminated because he uses caribou and moose skins for parkas and other clothing. In addition, a moose count done by the area biologist about 12 miles above and below Hughes has shown that the population is on the decline. The bill is not going to really help us. Number 0686 REPRESENTATIVE JOE GREEN asked Mr. Oldman whether the decline in the moose population is caused by hunters or other predators. Number 0696 MR. OLDMAN replied the moose count was done in November. He cannot answer the question because it could have been done by both. Number 0724 REPRESENTATIVE GREEN stated the legislation would only apply in a time of shortage. He asked Mr. Oldman whether something should be done to eliminate predators other than man first, before barring other Alaskans from taking game. Number 0746 MR. OLDMAN replied, "Yes." But, there needs to be a study done first. Number 0758 CO-CHAIRMAN HUDSON asked Mr. Oldman what would be his reaction to setting up a system that would require an application for a permit based on income in order to be eligible for subsistence hunting or fishing. Number 0792 MR. OLDMAN replied there is already 70 percent unemployment in most of the rural villages. Number 0818 CO-CHAIRMAN HUDSON asked Mr. Oldman what would be the reaction to applying for a subsistence permit. Number 0843 MR. OLDMAN replied they would have to apply for it. CO-CHAIRMAN HUDSON asked Mr. Oldman how he felt about it. MR. OLDMAN replied he would support it. Number 0862 CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN asked Mr. Oldman, if there is a shortage in his area and there is not enough to go around, does he think that the people who do not have jobs should have a priority over the people who have jobs. Number 0871 MR. OLDMAN replied, "Yes." CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN stated the bill is attempting to protect those that have a true need for subsistence. Number 0928 CLIFF JUDKINS, President, Alaska Boating Association (ABA); Member, Local Advisory Board, testified via teleconference in Mat-Su. The ABA pretty much endorses what Sidney Huntington, Carl Rosier and Jim Rearden said earlier. Most of the members of the ABA are hunters and fishers living in both urban and rural areas, and many hunt and fish for food. He commended the time, effort, and courage for putting forth the bill. The ABA supports its intent and hopes that it will not be rushed through the legislative process. The more people that review and comment on it, there is a better chance of gaining the confidence of the many Alaskans that are frustrated over the subsistence issue. The ABA feels that Alaska can equitably and fairly deal with the subsistence needs of all Alaskans within the framework of the state constitution. The ABA is solidly against amending the constitution concerning the allocation of fish and wildlife resources. The ABA feels that HB 406 provides an alternative solution to a constitutional amendment and the ever looming federal takeover. The ABA thanks Co-Chairman Ogan. Number 1014 NOEL WOODS testified via teleconference in Mat-Su. Predation by bears and wolves is not considered enough as part of the problem in HB 406. He has been hunting since 1945. Back in the 1950s, the federal wildlife people instituted a wolf control program that eliminated wolves by 80 to 90 percent. He used to never see a wolf on foot and now it is common to see one. He is concerned about usurping the power of the regional boards by using the language "shall" defer to the advisory committee. He suggested using "may" instead of "shall." The bill is on the right track. He opposes amending the state constitution. Number 1155 ROBERT WILLARD, JR., Representative, Alaska Native Brotherhood - Juneau Camp; Member, Executive Committee of the Southeast Native Subsistence Commission. He is from Angoon. When speaking of subsistence, you must look at the various aspects of what you are affecting. Southeast's population is set at 74,118. Of that number, 14,481 are Alaskan Natives. The urban population of Southeast (Juneau and Ketchikan) is set at 44,252. There are 5,628 Alaskan Natives that live in urban Southeast. In rural Southeast there are 29,876 people. Rural Southeast is comprised of 20,331 non-Natives and 8,851 Natives. That means rural Natives in Southeast are outnumbered by approximately 3 to 1. So when the Alaska population is reported, the news media, and people in responsible positons, make it sound as if only Alaskan Natives live in rural Alaska. On a statewide basis, rural Natives are outnumbered by non-Natives by approximately 5 to 1. So when you hear a rural subsistence preference, it is not a Native preference, therefore, it is not a racial issue. Also, on a statewide basis subsistence users take less than 4 percent of the wild, renewable resources. The following is the Southeast harvest of salmon on an annual basis for Southeast: commercial harvest took 29,880,800, sports/personal took 158,800, and subsistence took 40,100. Also, on a statewide basis, there are 38,865 Alakan Natives that are denied subsistence opportunities because they reside in an urban area. This is from the records of the Alaska Department of Fish and Game. MR. WILLARD, JR further stated to address the rural preference in Title VIII of ANILCA, Congress intented to invoke a rural preference only when the resource was declining. Since 1980 when ANILCA was implemented, the rural preference has never been invoked. There has never been a time when commercial, sport, or personal use were closed and only subsistence harvest was allowed to continue. When an opening occurs in Southeast, it occurs in common. In the event of a rural preference, such a preference would apply to both Natives and non-Natives. We would have it no other way. And while we are not authorized to speak for the non- Native communites of Point Baker, Port Alexander, Meyers Chuck, Coffman Cove and others, we do look after their subsistence needs. Of primary interest to the Southeast Alaksan Native tribes is the subsistence harvest and uses of the cultures. Thus, any allocation must include an amount for cultural purposes in addition to family needs. The subsistence fight to us is known as cultural survival for our children and grandchildren. The next generation is foremost in our minds and our endeavors. In the final analysis, it is our cultural existence that is imperil when we examine the proposed legislation. If HB 406 is enacted and implemented, it would sound the death knell of the subsistence lifestyle and culture that Congress intended to protect. MR. WILLARD, JR. addressed Section 16.16.020(1) - income requirements - and read a statement by Congressman Morris K. Udall, Chairman of the Interior and Insular Affairs Committee, who marshalled Title VIII of ANILCA until it passed: "The policy also requires that regualtory systems which employ income requirements not be imposed upon rural residents. Income requirements are by their very nature capricious classifications in rural Alaska, and consequently can be invidiously destructive to the Alaskan Native Cultures." MR. WILLARD, JR. further stated Chairman Udall also addressed the issue of individual criteria. He said that subsistence opportunity must be on a community basis, not on an individual basis. If done on an individual basis, it would have a destructive effect on the knowledge that keeps our cultural existence alive after thousands of years. We have a tribal obligation to pass the knowledge of our subsistence lifestyle on to the next generation. MR. WILLARD, JR. further stated, in regards to the local adivosry committees, Congress saw the value of having persons serving in these capacities because of their personal knowledge of local conditions. We do not feel that a person who has applied for a subsistence permit needs to go through the process of attaining approval from the local advisory committee, regional advisory council, Board of Game, Board of Fisheries, or whatever other criteria the boards may adopt. MR. WILLARD, JR. further stated that changing the term "subsistence" to "sustenance" is wrong, and the term "customary and tradition" should remain in state legislation. MR. WILLARD, JR. further stated that Title VIII of ANILCA has been misinterpred from the very outset of the meaning of a rural preference. Federal and state managers believe that it means subsistence eligibility. As a result, Juneau and Ketchikan are determined to be ineligible. William P. Horn, Assistant Secretary of the Interior, indicated that Juneau, Ketchikan, Anchorage and Fairbanks would be eligible for subsistence, albeit without a preference when the resource declines. This means that the Native children born in 1975 or around that period grew up without knowledge of where to fish; where to hunt for deer, seal, ducks, or geese; where to dig for clams; and where to pick blueberries, salmon berries, thimble berries, or other berries. MR. WILLARD, JR. stated, in conclusion, that HB 406 as written would certainly destroy the cultures of Southeast Native tribes. If it is your intent to destroy our cultures, then you should say so publically. We ask that the people be allowed to vote. Number 1805 CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN stated it is not his intent to destroy anybody's culture. In fact, he has deep respect for other cultures. He is simply trying to protect those that truly depend on the resources in a time of shortage which would be people from Mr. Willard, Jr.'s culture. Number 1844 MR. WILLARD, JR. explained he will be presenting to Co-Chairman Ogan a sectional analysis of the bill. CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN replied he looks forward to receiving it. Number 1852 REPRESENTATIVE DYSON asked Mr. Willard, Jr. whether the people he represents are getting enough fish and game to satisfy their needs of traditional and customary uses. MR. WILLARD JR. replied, "I believe so." Number 1887 REPRESENTATIVE DYSON asked Mr. Willard, Jr. whether it is possible, in a time of plenty, to satisfy their needs of traditional and customary uses under personal use/sport hunting and fishing provisions of the state. MR. WILLARD, JR. replied even though we do not particulary care for the word "subsistence," we would prefer a suppression between personal and sport uses, and would prefer it in terms of subsistence use. REPRESENTATIVE DYSON asked Mr. Willard, Jr. whether it is possible to get the resources that are necessary for customary and traditional uses and cultural reasons in a time of plenty. MR. WILLARD, JR. replied, "Yes." Number 1956 REPRESENTATIVE DYSON stated according to Mr. Willard, Jr.'s testimony the cultures would be destroyed, but that does not appear it would happen, unless the resources were destroyed and no one had access. Number 1984 MR. WILLARD, JR. stated there is no reference to cultural dependence in the bill which would affect our ability to come forward as required by our culture. Cultural uses are in addition to family needs. When we harvest for our family needs, we also take into consideration what will be needed for the fall and culturally. Number 2046 REPRESENTATIVE DYSON replied he referred to a time of shortage. MR. WILLARD, JR. stated the bill would limit harvest to family consumption with no consideration for cultural uses. REPRESENTATIVE DYSON replied if there is lots of fish and game then there would be lots for all of the needs. Number 2104 REPRESENTATIVE GREEN stated he is concerned that the concepts are being defined in a time of shortage. He asked Mr. Willard, Jr. what would be a cultural use that would be significant to the stock that would not be a sustenance type of use. Number 2168 MR. WILLARD, JR. replied in the event of the death of a tribal memeber, the deceased's favorite food is fed to the survivors at the cermony. Number 2256 REPRESENTATIVE GREEN replied, according to the legislators that he has talked to, that would not be an imposition to be considered as part of a preference. He asked Mr. Willard, Jr. whether feeding fish to dogs as opposed to people would be considered part of the lifestyle. MR. WILLARD, JR. replied not necessarily in Southeast. REPRESENTATIVE GREEN stated certainly a small use for the family is commendable. He wondered how far cultural use would extend into the resource use. Number 2320 MR. WILLARD JR. replied it would not extend siginificantly. Number 2341 REPRESENTATIVE JEANNETTE JAMES said she is concerned because the rural priority leaves out a lot of Natives and eliminates their cultural things. In reference to the death cermony, there is another place in state law that allows for the taking of animals for a death ceramony. She asked Mr. Willard, Jr. whether he believes that it is worthwhile for the legislature to proceed in a method to make it fair for all Natives no matter where they.... TAPE 98-21, SIDE A Number 0000 MR. WILLARD, JR. replied there was action taken by the Board of Game in Fairbanks that allowed for the harvesting of game for unexpected cultural purposes. It must be reported 15 days after the event. We do appreciate the legislature addressing the problem for the urban Natives. Number 0086 REPRESENTATIVE DYSON stated he lives near the largest Native village in Alaska - Eklutna. They have been there for several hundreds of years and are excluded from their traditional ways of making a living. They want a resolution that would allow them the chance to continue to pursue their cultural and traditional ways of raising their children. REPRESENTATIVE IRENE NICHOLIA announced she was present via teleconference. CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN announced for the record that Representative Barnes joined the meeting quite some time ago. Number 0213 RICHARD SLATS, Member, Chevak Traditional Council, testified via teleconference in Chevak. He comes illprepared because of the short notice for this hearing. The bill does not come as a surprise for most rural residents because of its intent, but because there was not adequate notice for response from bush Alaska. Most bush Alaskans use their weekends for hunting and fishing to feed their families, if they are lucky enough to find work during the week. The rural priority should remain because subsistence is a way of life for rural residents. Without it, we will cease to exist. Urbanites have resources readily available - McDonalds, Carrs, and Safeway - for their sustenance. The bill calls for a system to demonstrate dependence on fish and game. He is pretty sure that this will develop into a system like green cards for aliens. In today's world and the economy such as it is, one has to find work or relocate in an effort to support his family. As a result, Natives will be split up into those that are eligible and those that are ineligible, when the ones that are ineligible come from the same mother, father, community, speak the same tongue, and live the same lifestyle. To prove how much fish or game an individual consumes would be almost impossible to enforce. He also wonders whether the guiding principles of the Alaska Federation of Natives (AFN) subsistence summit were considered when writing the bill. The guiding principles recognize the customary and traditional uses of the resources which basically separates the difference between "subsistence" and "sustenance." The Native people are up to their necks on assaults of their very being. This bill should not go any further than where it is today. The author of the bill reminds him of a modern day Custer. When his rights are limited as a Native, he will probably be made into an outlaw in order to feed his own family, and that is where he will bury his heart. CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN stated the bill has been available for well over a week. Number 0714 REPRESENTATIVE RAMONA BARNES stated it always strikes her when there is testimony in regards to feeding ones family at outlets like McDonalds in the urban areas. She asked Mr. Slats whether the sustenance or subsistence needs of urban residents who do not have the funds to go to McDonalds are any less of a need than those in rural areas. The largest Native community in the state of Alaska resides in Anchorage. Number 0788 MR. SLATS replied he is concerned because more times than not these types of things snowball on and on. There are stores available in urban areas that are not available in the bush where the residents have to rely on the resources. We do not have fresh produce. We do not have fresh meat within our stores. Number 0858 REPRESENTATIVE BARNES stated she wants to know which communities do not have any food in their stores. Air cargo is flown into most communities frequently. In Alaska today food is available to all who have the money to pay for it. Thus, the folks in urban areas that do not have money should not be denied the right to subsistence or sustenance to maintain their life. Number 0905 MR. SLATS stated there are literally no jobs available. They have to rely on welfare and handouts. They use the money for gear and gas to get their food. He did not say there are no stores, but there are no jobs for the most part. Number 0960 CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN stated he is aware of that and would like to give those that do not have a job a priority in a time of shortage. Number 1017 BONNE' THERRIAULT-WOLDSTAD testified via teleconference in Fairbanks. She has lived in North Pole, Kodiak and Craig. She believes firmly that Alaska's fish and wildlife resources are a second permanent fund. Subsistence means something different to each person due to our great cultural, economical and geographical diversity. We will never completely satisfy all the people. It may be easier to say what subsistence is not rather than what it is. The use of fish and wildlife resources have played a significant role in her life. Many of the pioneers knew what it was like to work through the summer to get through the winter. When she was younger the moose and berries were a significant food source for her family. Her brothers continue to hunt moose, and her family gathers at least once a year to fish. We continue our family's traditional use of the resources. But, as near and dear as the resources are, they are not something that the family must have in order to provide food. There are people to whom the use of the resources come dearer. She does not, however, negate the emotional importance of the resources to her family. In addition, the areas that qualify as rural today will become urban areas in the next 25 years as the population base continues to grow. Not too long ago, cities grew and diminished during the Gold Rush Era. As natural resources are discovered in remote areas of the state, there will be a shift in population dynamics. For those who advocate federal management, she asked them to consider what happened to the fisheries before statehood. Federal laws are full of Alaskan exemptions. She asked the legislators to fully review and fund the use of the local fish and game advisory committees. They were established to make recommendations based on local knowledge and needs. We must realize that the state continues to grow and we have placed greater strains on the resources. We must all recognize that there will be change. We must start to differentiate between subsistence, and customary and traditional uses of the resources. The federal takeover must be avoided. It is in the best interest of the people to find a solution in which Alaskan control is maintained, not only in name, but in function. She agreed that the issue should continue to be fought in court, but we should not wait. She would like to see a vote on the rural preference, as well as the lawsuit. When she lived in Craig she would have qualified for subsistence, and could have applied for a proxy hunt for her brother-in-law, who was injured in a snowmobile accident; her brother, who was having problems with his back; her sister-in-law, who was pregnant; and her father, who was losing sight in one eye. That would have been an abuse of the system. These are things that can be worked with. She does not see the term "rural" being modified in this election. Canada is seeking a greater role in the input of fish management in Alaska. She wondered whether Alaska's resources would be controlled by treaties under federal management. It is imperative that we forestall federal management with a five-year sunset clause. Number 1356 GABE SAM, Director of Wildlife and Parks, Tanana Chiefs Conference, Incorporated (TCC), testified via teleconference in Fairbanks. He is speaking for 43 tribal villages, approximately 14,000 members. For the record, TCC opposes HB 406. At this time, we are faced with two critical dilemnas - the impending federal takeover because of the state constituion, and the deteriation of a community and a way of life. House Bill 406 would be the type of law that would deteriate our way of life. It does not comply with ANILCA. By replacing the words "customary and traditional" uses with "personal or family" uses, the bill eliminates the entire concept of subsistence. The word "sustenance" refers to food when subsistence is more than food; it is a way of life that involves our culture, spirituality, and relationship with one another. In tribal villages the invidual human being is not the critical view that drives the world of subsistence. To subject Native American people to a permit process would reach into the middle of every family and village and create two aritificial classes - traditionalists and moderns. The result would be personal resentment and conflicting loyalties amongst the closest of friends and family members. It would destroy the social cohesion of any village largely based on subsistence roles and obligations. The fear of not meeting the eligibility requirments would become a disinsentive to participate in a wage economy if it meant having to leave the community. He is concerned with the young men and women growing up in the communities now because they would not be able to combine cash and wild resources - the only way villages can make it through each year. Finally, HB 406 would even regulate sharing and bartering, another essential component in a village's way of life. Number 1548 REPRESENTATIVE BARNES stated Mr. Sam's testimony indicated the whole problem of a rural priority - the creation of two artificial classes of Natives in a village. Yet over and over, he is asking the legislature to create two artificial classes of Alaskans. She asked Mr. Sam to comment. Number 1579 MR. SAM replied there are no jobs in the rural communities, and even if they have a job they do not want to live off of the stores. They grew up living off of moose, caribou, beaver and fish. His family lives in Fairbanks, but they live off of the subsistence foods that he was brought up on. Number 1635 REPRESENTATIVE BARNES stated it always amazes her that the way one person was brought up is suppose to be better than the way another person was brought up. For example, her children ate moose, caribou and fish. To this date, one of her sons rarely buys any meat of any kind in the store. Why should the way he grew up eating that type of meat be any different than anybody else she asked. Number 1665 MR. SAM replied we are talking about two different cultures. He does not have an understanding of her culture, but he does have a clear understanding of his culture from the teachings of the elders. He does not want to make it a cultural issue, but it is dividing Alaskans into rural versus urban, and Native versus non- Native. In addition, the state needs to manage its fish and wildlife resources. It is not managing the wolf population, for example. The resources are not only being depleated by the preditors, but by the population of the state as a whole. The resources will not be able to sustain themselves much longer with the population growing. Number 1725 CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN stated Mr. Sam hit the nail right on the head - sustaining the resources. The sustained yield clause of the state consitution is where he would like to go with the issue so that in a shortage there can be a preference in order to preserve the resource. Testimony has indicated that rural communities are turning into urban areas. He cited Bethel and Sitka. Sitka has a Carrs grocery store, and there are many villages where household incomes are high. Number 1791 REPRESENTATIVE JAMES asked Mr. Sam whether he was referring to himself or the people he represents when he mentioned living in Fairbanks and living a subsistence lifestyle. Number 1825 MR. SAM replied he was talking about himself. There are a lot of people who live in Fairbanks because there are no jobs in the rural communities. In a time of shortage all people in the state would suffer under limited hunting. In response to Representative Ogan, there are a lot of villages that are below the poverty level. Number 1875 REPRESENTATIVE MASEK respectfully asked the committee members to hold their comments. There are a lot of people waiting to testify. Number 1906 REPRESENTATIVE REGGIE JOULE stated he is not interested in hearing a debate with the people who are viewing their opinions. He is interested in hearing their opinions. Number 1922 REPRESENTATIVE WILLIAMS agreed with Representatives Masek and Joule. CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN asked the committee members to keep their debate down, unless a significant point is raised. Number 2012 RALPH SEEKINS, Representative, Alaska Wildlife Conservation Association (AWCA), testified via teleconference in Fairbanks. The AWCA has the greatest respect for Alaskans who harvest fish and game and other natural resources to feed and care for their families - the attempt in HB 406. The AWCA believes the answer is abundance - also the attempt in HB 406. From that standpoint, the concept of the bill is good. It needs some tuning and simplification, and the AWCA is willing to work with the legislature to do that. Today, less than 3 percent of Alaska's harvestable surplus goes to feed people, the rest goes to feed predators, or to replenish the stocks. This is a deplorable report card. We are fighting over who gets to shot the last moose. Today, the Department of Fish and Game with the Governor's blessing is spending millions of dollars to build an indoor shooting range, while refusing to control predators. The AWCA does not like that. There are three parts from the bible that apply to this situation: Philip (second chapter, third verse), James (third chapter, sixteenth verse), and Matthew (twelfth chapter, twenty-fifth verse). The AWCA implores that the legislature and the people of Alaska work together. The federal control issue belongs in the courts. The discussion will never end, the division will never cease, and the destruction of a unified Alaska will never end, until there is a United States Supreme Court decision. Otherwise, many Alaskans will continue to put great hope into hollow promises of the power mongers who would divide us against ourselves. We cannot solve division by making it permanent. We cannot say it is right when it is morally wrong. The AWCA believes that the greater evil is to approve of and make a permanent system of discrimination than the federal control looming over our heads. A final judicial is needed. The AWCA applauds the Legislative Council committee for continuing the fight. Title VIII of ANILCA is wrong and flies in the face of the public trust doctrine, the Alaska Statehood Act, and other Acts. But, while doing that, the AWCA applauds Co- Chairman Ogan for looking for a solution amongst Alaskans and commits itself to working towards a solution that will work for everyone. Number 2201 DICK BISHOP testified via teleconference in Fairbanks. He is testifying on behalf of himself today. He supports the principles of the AFN subsistence summit of the opportunity to gather fish and game for subsistence as a basic human right. It is inappropriate to discriminate arbitrarily against people who exercise that right. There needs to be equity in the opportunity to exercise that basic human right. The proposal to establish the federal rural priority is in direct opposition to the equity and pursuit of that right. Personally, he believes basing a consideration of preference on food is the way to go. Comments on the values that follow a subsistence way of life are based on the gathering of food. A one- liner that was often used in the early days of this debate 20 years ago was "hunger knows no law." The whole issue was the opportunity to gather food for one's self and family. In reference to the responsibilities of the legislators, Edmund Burke stated "Your representative owes you not his industry only, but his judgement, and he betrays instead of serving you, if he sacrifices it to your opinion." The people depend on the judgements of legislators to protect the public trust on their behalf. Number 2356 BRUCE KNOWLES testified via teleconference in Mat-Su. He thanked the committee members for scheduling the meeting on a Saturday when the average Alaskan can attend. He cautions the legislators from passing another amendment that would develop another elite group of Alaskans and separate communities. House Bill 406 is a good starting point. It is not a panacea. It does not resolve all of the problems. Co-Chairman Ogan is to be commended, however. He encourages the legislature to do something that will give each Alaskan a share of what he is entitled to under the constitution. In a time of shortage, Alaskan have an obligation to look out for their neighbors. Number 2426 KATIE HURLEY testified via teleconference in Mat-Su. She is a lifelong Alaskan and has been a resident of the Matanuska Valley since 1960. She served in the House of Representatives in the Fourteenth Alaska State Legislature. She also worked for 12 years for Territorial Governor Ernest Gruening. Most importantly, she was the chief clerk at the Alaska Constitutional Convention and heard all of the debate of each article of the constitution. She read the following letter from Mary Nordale to Speaker Phillips dated 2/12/98: "The apparent refusal of the legislature to deal substantively with the subsistence issue dismays me. Those of us who lived under federal dominion in territorial days and those of us old enough to remember the politics of that ere have done a dismally poor job of teaching the latecomers and 'afterborns' our history. TAPE 98-21, SIDE B Number 0000 "My mother was a member of the constitutional convention. During the convention, I was overseas at school, so when I returned home, my mother sat me down one Sunday afternoon and went over the constitution section by section, sentence by sentence, to explain to me why the document was written as it was. "Subsistence was not an issue. The population was small, the pressure on subsistence resources was slight and the big problem facing the delegates was insuring that all Alaskans, regardless of race, had access to those resources. The delegates were well aware that in many respects, the federal government had worked to exclude Alaskans from utilization of the Territory's resources and they determined that exclusion on account of race would not occur. You may recall the virtual enslavement to the fur seal trade of the Natives resettled on the Pribilofs. You may also recall the prohibition enforced by the federal government of Native-owned power boats in the Bristol Bay fishery. That prohibition was based on the peculiar theory that Alaskan Natives could not efficiently operate power boats and that, therefore, they should be restricted to sail boats. "The Fouke Fur Company had a very sweet deal with the Fish and Wildlife Service and the Bureau of Indian Affairs in harvesting fur seals. The Aleuts on St. Paul and, to a small extent, on St. George were required to harvest the seals for almost no wages and it took an Act of Congress to allow them to utilize the meat from the slaughtered animals. The Alaska canned salmon industry controlled the Bristol Bay fishery and the sail boats to which the Natives were restricted meant that the catch went almost exclusively to the Brindle canneries. Nick Bez controlled almost all of the salmon in Southeastern Alaska and his fish traps were placed at the mouth of almost every major spawning stream in that region. The military use of caribou herds as strafing targets was, perhaps, not so well documented, but it was known. "With statehood, Alaska's population has exploded well beyond what even the most dedicated dreamer among the constitutional delegates hoped. Moreover, its concentration in the Anchorage area has led many Alaskans to remain ignorant of the lives and lifestyles of people living in the bush. The availability of supermarkets and clothing stores in all of Alaska's towns and villages over 1,000 in population has disguised the need for reliance on subsistence for the many Alaskans, Native and non-Native alike, who live in areas where foodstuffs, clothing and other materials are very expensive and cannot be well maintained. Most of Alaskans have no idea what it means to live in a nearly cashless society. "We, who should know better, have failed to tell the stories and have failed to impress those who resist the granting of a rural priority with the realization that had subsistence been an issue when the constitution was written, subsistence would have been incorporated in the constitution for the benefit of those who must depend upon local resources for their very lives. "The delegates to the constitutional convention were deeply concerned by the racial divisions that best the lower 48 states. Alaska's constitution contains many bars against racial discrimination for the reason that the delegates envisioned creating a society that treated everyone equally. The delegates intended provisions insuring equal access to fish and game to prohibit discrimination against Alaskan Natives and to guarantee that Alaskan Natives would never be denied the opportunity to maintain life. On its fact, granting a rural priority for subsistence would seem to fly in the face of that principle of equality, but it was never the intent of the delegates to limit access to resources upon which Alaskan Natives depend for their lives. "It is time now for us to grant that priority. It is wrong to elevate sport hunting and fishing to the level of or over hunting and fishing that supplies the necessities of life. It is wrong to say that the sport hunter's needs for game is equal to the need of a person who must rely on game to survive. It is wrong to say that commercial interests must be served at the expense of people's very lives. "Granting a rural priority for subsistence will have little, if any, appreciable effect on the vast majority of Alaskans. Allowing a federal takeover of management of Alaska's fish and game resources will, however, wreak havoc on those resources. There is simply no way that the federal government can resist the political pressures exerted by various special interest groups, be they commercial or environmental. We know that from our own history and from observation of current federal fish and game management techniques, and federal management of other resources as well. Management of fish and game should not be political, it should be scientific, with information developed not only by academic specialists, but also from the acute observations of the people who live with those resources. "Alaskans have been remiss in allowing the department of Fish and Game to rely almost entirely upon academically trained scientists and technicians. We should long since have incorporated in our management programs the observations of the people who live with the managed resources and whose observations are based on techniques honed by centuries of experience. "The day the federal government takes over all rural management of Alaska's fish and game resources will be a day that will live in infamy. It is difficult for me to believe that Alaskans could, in less than 40 years, forget the dreadful lessons we learned from federal management of our fish and game resources so that we willingly submit ourselves again to that regime. I hope that the Twentieth Legislature will exercise the generosity of spirit, recognize the need for development of a community of all Alaskans and pass the necessary resolution that will allow all of us to vote to amend the constitution to grant the rural priority for subsistence." ROBERT HALL, Representative, Houston Chamber of Commerce, testified via teleconference in Mat-Su. Houston was established when the railroad went through in about 1918 or 1920. Many at the time sustained themselves off of fish from the Little Susistna, and over the years the residents of Houston continue to be dependent on the river for their salmon intake. The bill is a strong framework that has the possibility of being the solution. It has the potential, with some tweaking, to gather support from most of the major groups. We like many aspects of the bill. Former Governor Hammond's original suggestion was to establish different game areas to allow for more local input. The priority for all Alaskans to feed their families is very important. The use of the word "preference" instead of "priority" is better. In order to maintain some sort of continuity with ANILCA, he suggested changing the wording back to "subsistence," then carefully define it so that it meets the needs. It is a tough job, but needs to be done in order to make it acceptable to most parties. The lines drawn for the dependent use areas would probably contain all of the non- subsistence areas which would put all of the rural users in their own districts so that in a time of shortage there would be a rural priority. The criteria for qualifying also needs to flushed out and dealt with. Basically, this is a program that most people could support. Any Alaskan who wants to feed his family will support it, and any commercial fisherman who faces a federal takeover will support it. It has the potential to draw all of the parties together, as long as subsistence is defined. Number 0516 REPRESENTATIVE NICHOLIA asked Mr. Hall what major groups is he talking about. Number 0522 MR. HALL replied most importantly the rural communities, including AFN, and the United Fishermen of Alaska. The rural communities are going to have to sign on to the bill It is going to have to require the agreement of major Native, sport and commercial fishing groups throughout the state. Number 0600 KATHERINE S. MIYASATO, President, Alaska Native Sisterhood - Douglas Camp Number 3, explained she is a Tlingit from the Taku tribe. She is a raven frog. She was raised in Juneau. The name Marshall was given to her grandfather because he was the first federal marshall on Douglas Island. She went to the Catholic school in Juneau and graduated from the high school. They did not let us learn our Tlingit way. "It's a shame," she said. She just turned 70 years old on New Years Day. She did not learn her culture, and because of that she is different. "To be lacking of your culture, of what you're suppose to know, you're robbed, you're different," she said. In terms of subsistence, she remembers the Catholic Nuns always saying "sustenance." She was surprised to see it in the bill. She is opposed to anything that would take her natural way of life away. To this day, she cannot drink fresh milk. She likes it, but she cannot tolerate it. Her system needs dried fish, seal oil and seaweed, and she grew up in Juneau eating steaks and hamburgers. She said, "Our systems really do not evolve; they are in tune to the way we have eaten." She recently found out at an elders conference that when the Department of Fish and Game regulates to catch fish it does not coincide with when we really need to catch it in order to dry it. The words "subsistence" and "sustenance" do not describe our physical, emotional, cultural or way of life. The Alaskan way of life is really a sad situation because we have been tried to be Americanized. Diseases and the change of foods almost wiped us out. Now, there are alcohol and drugs. It is like taking away her right as a person. She does not agree with a permitting process, just look at the limited entry permit system. In closing, all of Alaska is Indian country and she hopes that the visitors have been treated well. Number 1138 ERIC MUENCH testified via teleconference in Ketchikan. The people who wrote Article VIII, Section 3 could not foresee that it would ever be used to prohibit a preference for subsistence type use. There are some principles that should apply: all Alaskans should have the right to use the fish and game resources throughout the state. However, there needs to be a preference in relation to bag limits and seasons that would apply to specific geographical regions according to the economics of the areas. A preference for those in the geographical areas should apply only when there is a shortage. It should apply only to the extent that the resources can support subsistence use for the people of that area. A preference should apply to all of the year-round, permanent residents of that area. The draft bill is going down the right track. In Section 16.16.020(b) and (c) are not a practical approach. It would create a huge paperwork problem for the agencies and boards dealing with it. It would be a step towards a welfare program. It would also be subject to abuse. In addition, making a living from fishing, hunting and trapping without payment or the possibility of a commercial sale would not make anybody rich or give a good living. There would not be a rush of people to the areas to take part in that lifestyle. He has a problem with section 16.16.020(g) because in a subsistence type lifestyle you would not be in a position to travel all over the state. If you had that type of resource, you would not need a subsistence lifestyle. Thus, the preferential taking of fish and game should be within the area the person lives or the adjacent area. There are provisions in law now that talk of take for cultural purposes which should continue. If we need to amend the constitution to make the whole thing possible, we should do it. Number 1417 BARBARA JANITSCHECK, Vice President of Traditional Services, Maniilaq Association, testified via teleconference in Kotzebue. She read the following: "Good morning Mr. Chairman and committee members. My name is Barbara Janitscheck. I am providing testimony on behalf of Maniilaq Association and its member villages. "Our region speaks in opposition to committee substitute HB 406. "As you are aware, this region supported a federal takeover. House Bill 406 only adds to our justification why we believe a federal system is the system for us. "Soon after ANCSA (Alaska Native Clams Settlement Act), rural Alaska experienced enormous problems created by urban users - thus the reason for the federal act of ANILCA Title VIII, which in our view Congress did the right thing. "We believe that HB 406 will bring us right back to the issue for the protections rural Alaska enjoyed in Title VIII of ANILCA are not found in HB 406. "The bill does not include customary and traditional use of fish and game resources. The reduced level of participation, lack of language in the bill for the definition of customary and traditional use and the lack of a rural preference are enough for our area to conclude that HB 406 does not satisfy current requirements of Title VIII of ANILCA. "In times of shortage, HB 406 fails to address a clear solution for rural Alaska. If the boards determine there is a shortage then they may establish a preference. The language 'if' and 'may' are not enough to ensure that rural Alaska has a preference. "House Bill 406 is clearly a needs-based system, and the bureaucracy proposed is huge and does not take into consideration our cultural use of fish and game and will cause damage to our culture. It is also inconsistent with Title VIII of ANILCA. "House Bill 406's proposed management structure that is not set up for effective 'hands-on' management by local people. Only recommendations are expected from an advisory board who will send their recommendations up the ladder to the regional boards, and these regional boards would in turn provide their own recommendations to a Board of Fisheries or Game who will make the final decisions. This is not effective hands-on management by local people. "Our villages already face major problems - the challenges of welfare reform. Residents of urban Alaska have a superior access to the welfare system than rural Alaskans. Those urban residents can walk into any of the facilities in their area and have a face- to-face encounter with a case worker who can then provide one-stop services. Our rural residents don't have this luxury. What we have is a state system set up by telephone for those individuals on welfare. There is a lack of enough jobs in the villages. There is a lack of economic development, and rural Alaska faces cuts in a lot of service areas and/or access to funding and services. "House Bill 406 will only add to complicate the hardships making it more difficult to provide healthy meals to Native and non-Native families in rural Alaska. And those families will begin to suffer like they did before Title VIII of ANILCA was passed. Food from the land is an everyday mainstay of our families. Local hunters continue to provide food for their families, their extended families, and for their community. The food that is caught is always shared. Cultural sharing is one of the most important functions for the maintenance of healthy families and communities. House Bill 406 is not the solution and should not go further than this committee. We ask that you not support this bill." Number 1711 REPRESENTATIVE BARNES stated Ms. Janitscheck mentioned that urban Alaskans have access to a one-stop shopping welfare system. She wondered whether Ms. Janitscheck is aware of the new welfare law on the books that says one can only qualify for welfare for five years. In addition, there is a cash economy in the Kotzebue area - the Red Dog Mine. She asked Ms. Janitscheck how many people from the villages does the Red Dog Mine employee. Number 1757 MS. JANITSCHECK replied she is not sure of the exact numbers. The Native hire is not working well. There are a lot of Natives working there, but the percentage between non-Natives and Natives is not enough to satisfy the Natives' needs for jobs. She is aware of the new welfare program in Alaska. Number 1830 REPRESENTATIVE JOULE explained to Representative Barnes that about 50 percent of the employees of the Red Dog Mine are shareholders, including individuals that are not Native necessarily, but married to shareholders. Number 1875 WARREN LEWIS testified via teleconference in Kwigillingok. The Native village of Kwigillingok opposes the bill 100 percent. It seems there is a comedian in the legislature. It is funny that the fish and game must be consumed within the region taken - the "eat- it-where-you-shoot-it provision." Number 1960 TED HAMILTON (PH) testified via teleconference in Emmonak. The state of Alaska is giving the impression that it hates its own Natives. It spent $1 million to fight the Venetie case and now there is an impending federal takeover for some parts of Alaska. The federal government will take over if the state continues its current course of action. If the state cannot make a decision, everything that Senator Stevens did to stall the federal government will be wasted. To make sure that this does not happen, you must make a rural priority and amend the state constitution. If we open up Alaska to everyone, the animal populations will go down. If everyone does subsistence, how can the state expect to collect money for hunting and fishing permits? What would happen to the tourist industry if there are no animals? Would the tourists want to come to different parts of Alaska if everybody does the same thing? In addition, we should be able to bring food home to serve it to our people, not have to eat it in that place. That is how we live our life. In addition, the bill is setting up a bureaucracy that would be very time consuming and cost money. It is amazing that you would want to pursue this avenue. You should try to save money and follow the rules that the federal government wants and make a rural priority. Number 2172 MYRON NANENG, President, Association of Village Council Presidents, testified via teleconference in Bethel. A tribal consortium representing 56 villages in the Yukon-Kuskokwim Delta. Last night he dreamt that the state of Alaska had finally treated the Alaskan Natives fairly and recognized their culture, tradition, and way of life. House Bill 406 squashes that dream. We do not support it because the term "sustenance" does not recognize the Alaskan Native way of life, tradition and culture. In 1971 the state of Alaska promised to recognize the subsistence way of life with the passage of the Alaskan Native Claims Settlement Act. To date, the state has not kept its promise, or is it willing to sue itself for not keeping that promise. House Bill 406 does not fulfill that promise. There have been many lawsuits that the villages have had to file in order to get mandated services that the state should have provided under the constitution such as schools. Now ,the legislture is trying to cut down funding for them. The villages have had to file lawsuits to recognize the implementation of subsistence regulations. The fishing was a failure in the summer of 1993. There was a closure for subsistence fall chum in 1994. The fishing was a failure in te summer of 1997 on the Kuskokwim as well as Bristol Bay. The first fisheries that were closed were subsistence. The Board of Fisheries has finally taken action to address the fisheries that impact the fish that return to our rivers because of the threat to the species that the state is suppose to be managing. People say that the federal managers were bad, but just take a look at managment right now. The first fisheries that are closed are subsistence. The state of Alaska has had regional and local advisory committees in the past that have been ignored. They have made recommendations to help in the management, such as unguided hunters that come back with antlers and heads. What happened to the rest of the meat, and why are the subsistence users blamed for the decline of the resources. TAPE 98-22, SIDE A Number 0000 Number 0054 HUBERT ANGAIAK testified via teleconference in Bethel. As an Alaskan, he does not support HB 406 because it will cause a lot of bureacuracy in rural areas. He prefers a rural preference. Number 0130 MICHAEL BOWEN, Chair, Local Advisory Committee, testified via teleconference in Cordova. He is not sure what HB 406 would do to stop the federal takeover. Section 12(a) of the bill calls for the creation of five management regions. Currently, there are six management regions in the state causing one to be absored. The areas now are based on natural biological boundaries. He feels that the new boundaries would be political boundaries, not natural biological ones. Section 12(b) of the bill calls for a maximum of nine local advisory committees in each region. Currently, there are 18 local adivsory committees in his region. Thus, the bill would gut the local advisory committee system. In reference to Section 2(d) of the bill, his local advisory committee is very active. The work load is such that there are two chairmen - one handles fish issues and the other handles game issues. "To ask our advisory committee to be judge and jury, and make recommendations to determine whether a person is entitled to a preference is wrong," he said. As a chairman, he would not partake in it. In addition, section 2(g) allows a person with a preference to take fish and game in any location in the state when travelling long distance for sustenance or subsistence is a contradiction. Number 0325 CALEB PUNGOWIYI, Director of Natural Resources, Kawerak, Incorporated, testified via teleconference in Nome. Kawerak represents 19 communities in the region. First of all, it is hard to testify intelligently on something that he feels strongly against. The bill proposes dependent use areas based on economic conditions and he can see that many of the communities that have different economic levels may not fit into these areas. The system of applying for a permit is worse than being audited by the Internal Revenue Service (IRS). It is an administrative nightmare and he does not see how it could be implemented. For example, Nome has had problems with escapement and closures of the fisheries. Next week when the Board of Fisheries meets in Nome there will be discussion on tier II fishing for salmon, the first ever in the state. Nome's area biologist has been issuing subsistence permits to people that he knows qualifies. Under the bill, anybody could come and fish. The area biologist would be in knots. He would not know who to give a permit to because there are only so many fish to be taken. Under the tier II system at least there is some balance of people who have historically taken the fish and who are more dependent. He can only envision how the Department of Fish and Game would try to implement it. What are we getting into with the advisory committees, regional boards, Board of Fisheries and then finally the Governor getting into the decision making process, he wondered. In addition, in reference to the appointment of the regional boards, he has watched the confirmation process.... (Due to technical difficulties, Mr. Pungowiyi's testimony is not complete) Number 0650 PATRICK CHURCH testified via teleconference in Homer. He was asked by Mr. Jack Polster to read the following: "Last Tuesday, I had the occassion to sit here in the Homer teleconference office and listen to Mr. Greg Cook explain to the committee the public trust doctrine. You will recall that Mr. Cook explained to you your duties under that doctrine, including loyalty to the public, dealing impartially with the beneficiaries, and not to delegate your responsibilities. You will recall that Mr. Cook also stated that one of your fiduciary responsibilities was to provide information to the beneficiaries when requested. For the last four years, I have asked state government if it considers subsistence a right or a privelage and never have I received an answer and now I ask you. The question is significant and the answer is awaiting. Is subsistence a right or a privelage? You will recognize that a substantial number of individuals within the borders of Alaska hold common law freedom and status. These individuals have no contracts of adhesion with government. They hold no license or permits from government. They live not because of government, but inspite of it. In lines 9-12 on page 4 of the 23-page CSHB 406 working draft we find the following under (c): 'A person is dependent upon fish and game for personal and family use for sustenance if the person (1) possesses a $5 resident hunting, traping, and sport fishing license issued under AS 16.05.340(a)(6); and' "I repeat my assertion - subsistence is a right. Subsistence is not a privelage. To ask for a license to exercise a right is not in order. For example, if Teddy Kennedy and his kind have their way, I would be required to request a government permit or license to bear arms. By requesting and accepting the permit, I would automatically destroy the right which I now hold. A person cannot exercise a right or permit or license. Subsistence is a right, but the committee through its language in 406 has indicated its believe that subsistence is a mere privelage. One cannot accept a license from government which would be considered necessary to exercise subsistence and retain the right which he held until that point. I would like the committee to revist that point in lines 9-12 on page 4 of CSHB 406 and amend the bill's language so that it will clearly state that subsistence is a right. I thank you very much for your time." Number 0864 CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN replied like many rights, the state has a compelling interest to regulate some things that need to be balanced against the sustained yield principle. We cannot allow unregulated hunting and fishing, or we would not have any resource at all. Number 0944 JIM SYKES testified via teleconference in Anchorage. He has recorded more than 400 hours of testimony on subsistence and sovereignty when he worked for the Alaska Native Review Commission in 1984 and 1985. He strongly urges the committee members to review the work of the commission, archived in the University of Alaska Fairbanks and Anchorage, and to also look at the Federal Field Committee and the Alaska Native Commission. There is an enormous body of work on this subject. The problem is that the public has not been involved actively with the issue. It will not be solved until there is wide-spread participation. He commends Representative Ogan for bringing forth the bill. It needs some work, but it is a good beginning point for a wide-spread discussion. He hopes that it will be taken on the road. Part of the issue is trust. There is an historical sharing of the resources that is part of the subsistence tradition. The knowledge and health of the resources are well known locally. Therefore, the concept of brining local knowledge forward has to be part of it. He believes that the issue can be resolved without a constituional amendment if we make sure that local people are part of the management system. He offered the following concepts for consieration: to look at the success of the federal government in terms of implementing the regional subsistence advosory councils, the species the state is attempting to manage, local involvement, community allocation in a time of limited entry, and the federal government's right to contract with tribal entities to manage fish and game. We have to keep in mind that the federal government has granted three basic rights to the indiginous people living within the borders of the United States - free health care, free education and to continue their culture. They are a part of every Alaskan Native culture that cannot be separated. It is a web of sharing essential skills and knowledge that cannot be reduced to an economic need or means-test if you need to eat. The more we try to skirt around that issue, the longer we will have the problem. In concludion, when we embrace our Alaskan neighbors and sit down and try to work out the problem together we will succeed. It will probably take longer than December 1, 1998, however. Number 1352 LOREN CROXTON testified via teleconference in Petersburg. He thanked Representative Ogan for taking on the task that should have been done 20 years ago. He endorses Carl Rosier and Jim Rearden's comments. As Mr. Rosier said, "simply amending our constitution to bring us into compliance with ANILCA will not, in fact, return management to the state. We would have full control with federal oversight. Simply, another form of federal management." The Constitution of the United States requires that all states be admitted into the union under equal footing which means full control of its resources. It is almost inconcievable that the federal government could blackmail one of its states into discriminating against its own people. The same federal government that blackmails other countries for their discriminatory policies. The determination of who would be eligible for subsistence bothers him because the boards were designed to manage fish and game resources, not to do chores as required in the bill. It does not and would not have the expertise or time to do it. It would be a catastrophy to asked the Department of Fish and Game to control it. He suggested considering a system such as the one used by the Limited Entry Commission. He absolutely knows that the Board of Fisheries does not have the time or expertise to do this. Number 1536 CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN asked Mr. Croxton to state for the record his previous employment and his involvement when the federal government handed over the helm of fish and game management to the state. Number 1547 MR. CROXTON replied he came to Alaska just prior to statehood to attend graduate school in Fairbanks. He went to work for the Alaska Department of Fish and Game in 1960. He has had about 38 years of involvement with the management of the state's fish and game. Number 1576 CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN asked Mr. Croxton whether he is aware of the amendments made to ANILCA that would give the Secretary full and exclusive authority to take over managment if the state adopts a rural priority and he finds that it is out of compliance. It would not take effect until the state adopts it into its constitution and statutes. Number 1602 MR. CROXTON replied he is aware of it. He hopes that the state can write a subsistence bill that would qualify it to fully manage its resources or to fullfill the requirements of ANILCA. It is possible, but if the state cannot do it then it has to depend upon the courts or Congress to amend ANILCA. Number 1660 RON LONG testified via teleconference in Seward. There appears to be some contraditions in the bill because it first says there will be no preference in terms of the common use for all Alaskans then it develops into a needs-based system. It finally evolves to a system where anybody who wants to complete the application, while keeping a straight face, could become a priority user. It sounds sort of like an attempt to include sport users as sustenance users at the expense of good science-based managmeent. The hope that Congress will pass changes to ANILCA in the absence of corresponding changes in the state constitution is naive. "If you truly want an Alaskan-based solution then put it to the Alaskan voters," he said. It is time to end the grandstanding. The recent royalty decision should tell us all how warmly the courts and Congress would receive the notion of the state's wishes to (indisc.) resources management issues, especially without support of the Governor, Speaker of the House of Representatives, President of the Senate, user groups, and voters. It is the arrogance of this proposed non-solution that will lead to a federal takeover. There is no dishonor in amending the constitution and getting to a common goal for a means that is doable. House Bill 406, as it stands now, will not get us there. Discussions, modifications, and elements of the subsistence task force proposal can get us a solution, if held openinly with all the parties involved. In reference to Representative Ogan's comments at the Anchorage Chamber of Commerce Forum, a reduction in the commercial fishing quotas would basically end the subsistence dilemna. The desire to resolve commercial and sport user group conflicts as s sub-purpose for the bill in non-rural areas is a separate issue that needs to be decided separately. Any attempt to encorporate protective intent for the sport lobby and therby provoke a federal takeover is playing fast and loose with the best interest of all Alaskans. He said, "We all know in this life we don't get what we deserve, we get what we negotiate." Number 1812 CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN stated, to clarify the records, that his comments at the Anchorage Chamber of Commerce Forum were along the lines of buying back permits in a time of resource shortage. Subsistence harvests only 1 percent of the fish. There are certainly enough fish to provide for that need. There is the potential, however, to look at buying back permits to make sure that Alaskan residents have the priority when there is not enough resource to go around. Number 1865 NICK SZABO testified via teleconference in Kodiak. He had the opportunity to serve on the Board of Fish and Game in 1975 and the Board of Fisheries until 1982. He had the privelage to serve with Jim Rearden, Sidney Huntington, and Carl Rosier. He endorses what they have said. He commends the efforts of Representative Ogan and the House Resources committee to come up with a system that aims at a fair preference for those that really need the resources. It is a good place to start and hopefully everybody can look at it objectively to start on an Alaskan solution. On page 6, the definition of "shortage" needs clarification. It is unclear whether it applies to protein abundance at the time or to a particular type of species. On page 15, subsection (j), the wording is a little ambiguous becasue it implies that the regional boards have both emergency opening and closure authority. He suggested deleting the entire paragraph. It has never been exercised and there is potential for abuse. Emergency openings and closures are best left to the commissioner. Number 2077 CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN explained he is also working on the language in subsection (j). The people in a region have a better idea if a population is getting hammered too much. There is the possibility of giving the regional boards the authority to close a population in a time of shortage. Number 2115 MORGAN SOLOMON testified via teleconference in Barrow. He has lived in Barrow all of his life. Since 1959 we have been waiting for the state of Alaska to do something with our subsistence lifestyle. We have waited so long that sometimes we begin to wonder whether the state has a preference for our cause here in Alaska. The legislators from the urban areas - Fairbanks and Anchorage - have made it clear that they do not support the Native people who practice a traditional lifestyle. We have a very unique lifestyle. We have had to rely on the United States government to protect our ability to hunt and fish to support ourselves. He said, "When I live in Fairbanks I have to live the state law. I have to provide myself with a fish and game license, and live under the fish statutes in order to provide for my family." We fear that without the oversight of federal courts we will gradually loose what is left of our traditional ways in a series of compromises. The law would allow the urban legislators to look over our shoulders and tell us what we should or should not do with our tradition, the way we were raised throughout our existence. A respected elder during the Alaska whaling hearings stated, "hunger knows no law." The elder knew that we should not allow the federal government to tell us what we should or should not do with our traditional lifestyle. At the same time, the state should have supported us during that time. It seems that we, the indiginous people, should always be able to hunt for our families and villages without restrictions. The bill undermines the very nature of our culture because it implies that our people, who would not qualify under a cash-based system, could not longer enjoy their God given rights to live off of the land and in harmony with nature and the environment. In the early 1970s, the Department of Fish and Game adopted a policy of giving subsistence users the highest priority among beneficial users, when in reality it only recieved lip service. TAPE 98-22, SIDE B Number 0000 MR. SOLOMAN continued. States statutes have defined subsistence for various purposes, have established a division for subsistence under the Department of Fish and Game, and have delegated authority to the Board of Game to establish subsistence hunting areas. But, none of these statutes are able to overcome the legal, political, and economical problems of the state when it comes to implementing a true local or rural priority. Our subsistence right to hunt renewable resources in rural communities should not be solely managed by the Department of Fish and Game, but rather each village should be given the responsibility to co-manage their fish and game. He said, "No man, no legislator can regulate hunger that I had back in the depression days in Alaska when the only means of survival were our game." In addition, employment in Alaska is hard to come by and welfare programs are steadily being cut by the state. This bill only compounds the social and economic hardship for our people whether they are Native or non-Native. He asked the committee members not to support the bill. Number 0142 DESA JACOBSSON testified in Juneau. Her name on the voter registration records is Erica Leslie Jacobsson and the family name her parents gave her means "the powerful little sister who was protected by God." Her mother is from the upper Yukon and her father is Yupik from the Kuskokwim. Seven years ago she was in Juneau when she was stolen by a Tlingit. They now live in Juneau where they can keep an eye on all of the legislators. They are responsible for 11 children and grandchildren. She is a gardener by profession and one of the spoiled and indulged children of the Yupik. She is speaking on behalf of the lives of her children, the hopes of her grandchildren, and the hearts of her grandmothers. She is oposed to HB 406 because it is an act of deprevation and oppression. While reading the bill she could not help but think about the impact it would have on the aged, infirmed, widowed, poor, fatherless, and those who use English as a second language. With all of the requirements, the fish would have spawned, hatched and returned to the sea by the time the stipulations in Section 2(a) - (g) were met. How would he, Mr. Chairman, feel if she posed such regulations on him prior to his Thanksgiving, Christmas or Easter shopping at his local mall or grocery store. How would he feel if she required a written statement that he had turkey during last years Thanksgiving or Christmas holidays, or proof that he had chocolate cake at his childs last birthday. God forbid that three boards acting jointly would determine that a number of little chocolate Easter bunnies were shared with a minimum number of households. How would he feel if he were asked before he went out and got those little Easter eggs and chocolate bunnies: how stable is his economy, what kinds of work does he do, what do his neighbors earn, how much does he spend on goods and services, what varieties of chocolate bunnies does he and those around him eat, what is the percentage in his area who eat bunnies, what are the historical, social and economical values associated with consuming chocolate Easter bunnies during his holidays, and what are the graphic locations where he gets them. In closing, deprevation is the cruelest form of violence she knows. House Bill 406 is an act of violence and she does not believe that the sweet Lord Jesus gave him a vision so harmful and oppressive to so many. The sweet Lord Jesus would never deprive the infirmed, aged, widowed and fatherless. These are the special people that he has swarn to protect and defend. She does not know what it will take to stop the bill, but she does know it will be a cold day someplace before any Native woman that she knows will allow this to happen. Number 0344 CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN stated there is a difference between chocolate Easter bunnies and the kind of bunnies that run around in the woods. The bunnies that run around in the woods are a common property of the public trust resources and the state has a compelling interest to manage them in the best interest of the people. If there was a shortage of Easter bunnies, he would be more than happy to relinquish his position in line to somebody that needs it more than him. Number 0418 MARY PETE, Director, Division of Subsistence, Department of Fish and Game, testified in Juneau. She will speak to the research and management concerns that there are with HB 406. Her colleagues are at a joint meeting of the Boards of Fisheries and Game and will bring forward their concerns later. The division primarily documents subsistence hunting and fishing in Alaska to help the boards manage for that use. The individual criteria in the bill brings the division a lot of concern. It would not recognize the family and community system for production, processing and sharing in traditional rural economies. It would require a very expensive and intrusive process to qualify by making one's income and consumption level public. The division's data base is based on production or harvest of fish and game, not consumption. Information on harvest and sharing are difficult to measure and verify. They would be difficult to manage and enforce. The eligibility numbers would change from year to year due to job opportunities or lack of job opportunities that affect income levels. In addition, there would be a lag time of one year, if the previous year's economic situation was relied on. For example, if last year was a great fishery, one would not qualify, but if the current year the fishery crashed, one would not qualify when it was needed the most. There is a logic problem. Currently, there are around 80 active local advisory committees that have developed around common interests. An arbitrary number of regions, regional boards, and advisory committees would violate these established coalitions of common interests. They know their jurisdictions within the 26 game management units and approximately 300 fishing districts. The fishing districts vary depending on the species. Jurisdictions are assigned by the boards as the advisory committees have dealt with the issue in their regions. There were only two proposals from the public for the current joint board meeting to change either jurisdiction or membership of the 80 some advisory committees. The system has evolved over the years and makes sense in terms of the management issues for the species concerned. The bill would add mandates to an already full schedule. Number 0679 CO-CHAIRMAN HUDSON asked Ms. Pete whether she knows the Governor's position on the bill. Number 0693 MS. PETE replied she has not asked him directly. CO-CHAIRMAN HUDSON stated he does not want Ms. Pete to speculate on his view, but at some point we need to have his view. Number 0703 REPRESENTATIVE JAMES asked Ms. Pete how does the division get the anticipated need to factor the numbers into management decisions for fish and game. Number 0730 MS. PETE replied in the rural areas there are extensive programs of socioeconomic-economic surveys with a big focus on subsistence output. The basis question is, "How much fish and game do you use in a given year?" The division has been to close to 200 communities, including those that are designated as urban, and has done research based on a household sampling. If the community is small enough, it has done a census of family output. The division's data base for some communities is old. For key species of salmon along the Yukon and Kuskokwim Rivers in the Norton Sound and Kotzebue area and herring in key parts of the state, there is an annual monitoring program where the division asks households how much they produce for the year. For non-subsistence areas, the division relies on the harvest ticket reporting system established in the Division of Wildlife Conservation. The division brings the amount necessary to provide for subsistence uses to the board for the specie that is up for a customary and traditional use determination under the current law. Number 0814 REPRESENTATIVE JAMES asked Ms. Pete whether there is any indication when gathering the numbers to factor in a shortage, for example. Number 0837 MS. PETE replied the question of meeting need is a sensitive one culturally. Some people are loathed to say how fish and game will behave for fear of appearing arrogant so that the fish and game will not make themselves available. The division, therefore, compares the harvest amounts from year to year, and gets qualitative information on what the season was like for the households. The division also asks post-season questions in terms of how the previous season was and how the projected needs "might" be. For example, the division has been receiving reports that season was poor for the families and that they do not expect their fish supplies to last the whole winter in the Norton Sound area. The other qualitative questions asked are, does it take a reasonable amount of time get your moose, or do you have to go through what you consider extraordinary measures to produce as much as what you are accustomed to, for example. Number 0938 REPRESENTATIVE JAMES stated testimony today has indicated in regards to game the concern of outside hunters eating into the ability of subsistence people to find what they need. She asked Ms. Pete how that is factored into the calculations in order to protect the subsistence uses. Number 0964 MS. PETE replied the division will bring in harvest information and patterns and compare it to previous years. A reasonable opportunity might not mean getting the same amount, but tweaking a season so that it is harder for non-local residents to participate, for example. Number 1019 REPRESENTATIVE JAMES stated she recalls reading a story referring to an empty boat. The division's research does not sound very scientific. She wondered whether there is a way to get more specific information. Number 1039 MS. PETE replied there are either regulatory or statutory ideas that could make this a tighter system. Until then, however, a lot of discretion is put at the hands of the boards and for the most part they have done well for the rural residents. Number 1066 REPRESENTATIVE GREEN stated high-use areas such as Kenai use counters. Generally, the state has not suffered under any of the things the bill would invoke. MS. PETE stated that is absolutely true. REPRESENTATIVE GREEN asked Ms. Pete as the state gets closer to that whether it is her feeling that the regional boards, without more technical information, would adequately know how close the state is getting towards the sustainable yield. Number 1108 MS. PETE replied sustained yield is a biological question. The subsistence division does social science research. Defining shortage is a question of abundance or an ability to feed one's family. REPRESENTATIVE GREEN asked Ms. Pete whether she feels that the state is capable of determining whether it is approaching that limit. The information in regards to Nome is from a local community board and a "feel-for-thing." He wondered whether there is anything in place for the Department of Fish and Game to tell whether the state is getting close. Number 1183 MS. PETE replied the Nome situation is not new. Local concern has been expressed since the 1980s. There have been management and regulatory measures to both protect escapement and to provide local opportunities for the stocks. The board is at the point of exploring tier II because it appears that all other measure are not improving the system region wide. She believes that the state has the resources now to determine whether there is a shortage. There is probably not enough resources to address the whole state. But, the management system has done a good job of providing abundance so that it does not get to that point. Number 1301 CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN stated that the "time-of-shortage" language needs to be looked at seriously. Number 1353 LORETTA BULLARD, President, Kawerak, Incorporated, testified via teleconference in Nome. Kawerak is a non-profit organization servicing the Bering Strait region. She is opposed to the bill. It will not restore management of fish and game on federal lands to the state. The permitting system outlined would be a nightmare and expensive to administer. It sets in place an individual needs- based system. "I work, can afford, and have access to buy imported food so most likely I would not be eligible. My boyfriend perhaps might be eligible. His 84-year-old mother, definitely, would be eligible." Once disqualifying all rural Alaskan with a job from being eligible for "sustenance," she wondered who would help those without resources to go hunting and fishing, such as her boyfriend's 84-year-old mother. Subsistence hunting and fishing involves extended families. She has been to fish camps where there are four to six families working together, sharing nets, boats, fish racks, and labor to catch and clean a winter supply of dried fish. Under HB 406, when there is a shortage, she can envision state fish and wildlife officers going from fish camp to fish camp checking to see if there are people with incomes. The bill would split rural families into haves and have nots of indigenous foods. She is opposed to a reasonable opportunity standard being imposed on subsistence hunting and fishing activities. The reasonable opportunity standard has resulted in residents from the Bering Straits region for the past 20 years being able to hunt a brown bear once every 4 years. It was changed last year. The same reasonable opportunity standard has resulted in forcing subsistence river fishers to fish in the ocean because of closures in the rivers. She's had a subsistence fish camp on the Pilgrim River for 35 years and for the past 20 years she has been restricted to getting subsistence permits allowing a total of 20 salmon. Subsistence users in the state use 4 percent of the fish and wildlife resources. Secretary Babbitt has clearly stated that an individual needs-based system is not compatible with ANILCA and will not restore management to the state. The majority of Alaskans support a rural priority; it is time to let the people vote on a constitutional amendment. She encouraged the committee members to vote against the bill. Number 1524 PERRY MENDENHALL, Member, Sitnasuak Native Corporation Board, testified via teleconference in Nome. He is speaking on behalf of the shareholders who strongly depend on subsistence. We feel this is a Band-Aide bill to fix a complex rural lifestyle of dependency on fish and game in all seasons. This will not heal the wound of our good conscience in rural Alaska made on subsistence since 1979. Over the years since 1959 his mother has said many times that she regretted voting for statehood when the promise was made that subsistence would not be lost. The bill helps lose subsistence for today and all generations to come. The Bering Straits region is an economically depressed area ever since statehood and is dependent upon subsistence - hunting, trapping, fishing, and gathering sea and land plants. We feel that the bill is not consistent with ANILCA. It favors commercialism over subsistence because Area M fish intercepts chum salmon going to Nome. We have had subsistence closures for the past 10 years in the rivers around Nome. We feel that welfare reform forces us to look closer to the land, sea and rivers for subsistence. In a time of plenty we need to prepare for a time of shortage, but when some of our people try to do that we get arrested. Sections 2, 5, 12, 19, 32 and 36 need to be worked on. We feel the people need to vote on a constitutional amendment. Number 1702 REPRESENTATIVE BARNES asked Mr. Mendenhall to give her an idea of how the economy of the Bering Straits region has changed since statehood. Number 1729 MR. MENDENHALL replied there are still no jobs in the villages in the Bering Straits region. Most of the jobs are for teachers, but the Teacher Education Program, a program to train local people, has been cut. The increase in population along with the fact that there are no jobs makes the region economically depressed. The food in the stores is too expensive and the shelves are even empty sometimes resulting in more dependency on the subsistence resources. Number 1902 RICHARD ANDREW testified via teleconference in Ketchikan. He is in support of the concept of the proposed committee substitute. It upholds the Constitution of the State of Alaska. It attempts to treat all citizens equal. It keeps the management of fish and game in state hands. And, if passed, it should avoid a federal takeover through congressional changes to ANILCA. Number 1955 KAY ANDREW testified via teleconference in Ketchikan. She supports Loren Croxton and Carl Rosier's statements. She congratulates all of the representatives who support an Alaskan solution to the subsistence issue. The bill is going in the direction that subsistence should go. She does not want the federal government to take over management of fish and game in the state. As a lifelong resident, she remembers what federal management did to the country before statehood. It was a disaster. She also does not want to give up her rights to fish and game because of where she lives. She is tired of having some people tell her that she does not deserve something that her family has existed on for her entire life. She thanks those for instigating the lawsuit. The Governor's proposal only creates apartheid in the state when Americans fought a war for equality. "Keep up the good work Mr. Ogan. We respect and thank you. For those of you who don't support an equal rights solution, shame on you." MS. ANDREW further stated, not all rural areas would be eligible for subsistence under the federal law, only those with CNT findings would be eligible, according to a federal agent. These areas could, however, "jump through the hoops" to try to get eligibility. This was only one of the instances she discovered after meeting with the federal government in Ketchikan. For some reason, Ketchikan was left out in the beginning and was told, even if there were only two people left in the community, it would never be able to be eligible for subsistence. "These Hitler Era tactics by the feds to the state of Alaska have to be stop." Number 2193 DONALD WESTLAND testified via teleconference in Ketchikan. He commends the efforts of HB 406. Consumption is probably one of the only ways to come about on the issue. The citizens were able to vote on statehood, but were not able to vote on ANILCA. CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN thanked and said goodbye to Representative James for spending her Saturday with the House Resources committee. MR. WESTLAND further stated changing the state constitution would not get rid of federal management. Federal management will be here until Title VIII of ANILCA is repealed. "We need to get our representatives in Washington, D.C. to put their heavy foots down." No matter what is done, however, there will be consequences. He wondered about adding his name to the lawsuit. TAPE 98-23, SIDE A Number 0013 REPRESENTATIVE BARNES stated she would be happy to have any Alaskans made party to the lawsuit. She is not sure how, but she will try her very best. Number 0044 REPRESENTATIVE BARNES asked Mr. Westland whether he has read the amendments from Senator Stevens. Number 0064 MR. WESTLAND replied he does not have them at his disposal. REPRESENTATIVE BARNES suggested sending them to him. Over and over she continues to hear people say that a constitutional amendment allowing for a rural priority would allow the state to maintain management of its fish and game when the opposite is true. If the state is to adopt such a scheme, it would allow for federal oversight by the Secretary of Interior and the court system. Number 0122 MR. WESTLAND stated he lives in Ketchikan, but the United States Post Office considers mail delivered to his house as a rural route yet he is not a rural person. CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN stated his mail is delivered to a rural route as well. Number 0224 MICHAEL PATKOTAK testified via teleconference in Barrow. He is speaking today as a concerned Native. Representation by Joule, Nicholia and Williams is commendable during such blatant discrimination. Subsistence has been an ongoing issue for as long as he can remember. He seems to hear to the same arguments that he heard 27 years ago. It is ironic that the 1997 and 1998 Alaska State Legislature would honor the heroine of Native civil rights leader, Elizabeth Peratrovich, when we Natives are being denied the very basic and fundamental of civil rights - safe drinking water and waste facilities - and now the backbone of Native life - subsistence. He is fortunate to have been born in Barrow where the resources are plentiful, but historically we have never been afforded protection under the state constitution. Had Article VIII, Section 4 been applied without regard to special interests, ANILCA and the interception of federal authority would have been unnecessary. It seems that urban districts interprets language as it benefits them. House Bill 406 stinks of Alaska Outdoor Council's influence. For the sake of humanity, this nation was founded by men of many nationalities and backgrounds on the principle that all men are created equal and when the rights of one man are diminished the rights of all men are threatened. It is obvious that Alaska has faulted on its promissory note in regards to Natives. Alaska has given its Native people a bad check, a check that has been return for non-sufficient funds. For many years the replenishable resources in and on Native lands have been exploited by those in urban districts either by commercial or sport hunters at the cost of Native consumption and use. We are concerned because the legislative arm of Alaska has ignored the voice of Alaska to bring the amendment option to a vote. At the last poll more than 60 percent approve of voting on an amendment. It is time for all of those concerned in the Native communities to consider boycotting Fairbanks and Anchorage for services and goods. This can be done by moving AFN and other conventions to villages like Dillingham, Bethel, Nome and Barrow. It is time for a change and it is time to elect leadership that will call discrimination for what it is - unacceptable. Number 0602 REPRESENTATIVE BARNES stated from all that she knows Elizabeth Peratrovich was for the rights of all people, not just a few. Mr. Patkotak just presented the argument of why we should not treat one group of people differently than another. He quoted the sections in the constitution that apply to non-discrimination yet he asks us to discriminate. He also said that the legislature has blatantly discriminated against safe water and sewer when hundreds of millions of dollars have been spent on developing sewer and water systems based on need. There is not a community in the state that should not have safe water and sewer. Number 0735 DON SHERWOOD, Board Member, Alaska Boating Association, testified via teleconference in Anchorage. He has been a consumptive user and has fed his family on fish and game in this country for over 30 years. This act is a step in maintaining our state constitution for "all" people of Alaska. The catalyst of the bill is in Section 1(b)(1), "a preference for personal and family use of fish and game for sustenance that parallels the Congressional intent underlying the subsistence preference under Title VIII of the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (P.L. 96-487) but does not violate the fundamental constitutional rights of Alaskans to sustenance, equal protection, and common use of fish and game under the Constitution of the State of Alaska." Alaska's constitution guarantees equal standing and common use of resources, and access to the resources must be protected at all costs. If we bow to the federal government and change our constitution, we will split our state right in half and pit two cultures against each other with no acceptable solution for either. Number 0876 CHARLES McKEE testified via teleconference in Anchorage. The bill refers to equal protection of our rights, but the only place within the United States Constitution that allows for specific and limited rights is in Article I, Section 8 in terms of copyrights and patents. Other than that, people cannot be denied their common rights to access subsistence resources. When talking about fish and game in terms of the characteristics and socioeconomic's of an area, it is important to use the proper math. The Department of Fish and Game better recognize a person's legal right to property when using technology to evaluate who gets what and who gets access to what. Number 1195 DONNA HARRIS-FLEAGLE, Vice President, Tanana Chiefs Conference, Incorporated, testified via teleconference in Anchorage. She resides at Harris Hill Homestead five miles outside of the rural community of McGrath. She also serves on several local, regional and statewide boards. The issue in HB 406 is very important to those who continue to practice an ancient and honorable way of life. The outcome of this crisis will shape and define fish and game resource management for the future, while attempting to meet the rural priority clause in Title VIII of ANILCA. Our position remains to protect the intent of Title VIII, to protect rural Alaska in a time of shortage. The provision makes common sense for rural Alaska. House Bill 406 does not accomplish that goal. Subsistence is defined by Alaskan Native culture as a way of life that was practiced by our ancestors long before the appearance of a western culture in Alaska, and as a way of life that continues and will continue regardless of any attempt to sever that relationship. "We will preserve that way of life and will continue to teach our children the ways to do so." In addition, by replacing the word "subsistence" with "sustenance" the meaning is eroded and clearly defined by cultural values that are different than Alaska's Natives. "Subsistence" in the dictionary means to remain in existence or to support or maintain with provisions. "Sustenance" in the dictionary means food that sustains life or health. Please consider how a few changed words can alter what is being said. A subsistence lifestyle will never, by any stretch of the imagination, be replaced with a sustenance lifestyle. By replacing the cultural-based ties to the land and its resources, it becomes a classic western description of what animals mean. By creating a system based on need thereby opening up subsistence to all Alaskans, and by not satisfying Title VIII of ANILCA, is an unacceptable solution. She urged the committee members to consider the ramification of such a solution that does not validate the cultural, traditional, nutritional, medicinal and spiritual needs of Alaska's indigenous people. It seems that somewhere, in all of the progress as the new millennium approaches, that moral responsibilities have shifted to individual responsibilities and rights. The decisions that affect families should be required by Alaskans to set policies on. The one-size-fits-all approach that is being advanced is not realistic, workable, or a sign of an advanced society of finding a way to creatively and collaboratively form partnerships for the populace that reflect local and regional factors. It is ordinary people that realize change is a process, not an event. Accommodating diversity is a strength. Let's work on a solution that meets the intent of federal law and truly provides for Alaska's rural subsistence needs in a time of shortage. Let's allow the people of Alaska to decide by voting on a constitutional amendment that would create a true rural priority of fish and game allocation in a time of shortage for local users. Perhaps then we can start to work on maintaining healthy populations to sustain a high level of harvest, and hopefully we will never find ourselves in a time of true shortage. Number 1446 JOHN ELUSKA JR., Representative, Shageluk Native Village (IRA), testified via teleconference in Shageluk. People over here are really dependent on subsistence. It has been that way all of our lives. We are really dependent on fish, moose, beaver, grouse, geese, muskrat, berries, bear, and whatever else is out there. If people were to take it away we would probably end up in starvation like Africa. Our dependence is such that we use lard from bear to cook. There are no jobs around here. People are really, really dependent on a subsistence lifestyle. They are really dependent too on trapping as a way of income. We don't firefight in the winter time. Number 1590 PHILLIP ARROW testified via teleconference in Shageluk. He is an elder from Shageluk. He does not understand much, but has heard that the legislature is trying to close subsistence. We are really dependent on it. We don't have money like the white people around here. They are the ones that really don't know subsistence and they are trying to close it. How come you did not give us much notice? We just got a letter yesterday asking to post a notice. There are a lot of guys in town that want to say something too. Number 1642 REPRESENTATIVE BARNES thanked the elder for testifying, but he should know that we are not trying to close subsistence. The bill does not in any way close his subsistence. In addition, the notice for the meeting went out one week ago. Number 1678 BART testified via teleconference in Barrow. There is only one person who controls Unit 26, but there is not one wildlife person up here even though we are on fertile land. The legislators know why. They leave us alone is because we are subsistence people. But, we have to take care of the problem today when the legislators will leave tomorrow. We fought for the lands and legislators come in and out. His father, grandfather and great-grandfather have said that they are just here to stay; they will be gone. Number 1894 REPRESENTATIVE WILLIAMS announced he has to go home now to get something to eat. He will watch on television. Number 1938 DALE BONDURANT testified via teleconference in Anchorage. He opposes amending the state constitution in any way that subjugates common use. He supports personal consumptive use as the highest and best use of our public trust - the common property fish and wildlife resources. In a recent state supreme court case, the definition of preference of uses and equality of users was defined and remanded the ruling back to the Board of Fisheries to do something about it. He is confident that the issue is going to end up in court. Number 2035 REPRESENTATIVE BARNES pointed out that Mr. Bondurant has been involved in the fish and game resources for some 30 to 40 years. He has consistently used his own money to help ensure that the resources are maintained on a sustained yield principle for the common use of all the people. He is to be commended. Number 2056 MR. BONDURANT replied he appreciates the words. He is trying to do that. He has a real love for Alaska. It has treated him well. He is trying to retain something for future generations. Number 2080 SELINA EVERSON, Subsistence Chair, Alaska Native Sisterhood, testified in Juneau. There is no doubt of our deep commitment and preservation of our customary and traditional lifestyle. This was demonstrated by more than 600 Natives in Anchorage during the subsistence summit. "Customary" says habitual, based on custom or tradition. "Tradition" is a time-honored practice. We were born into this lifestyle. She is especially committed to the rural residents that depend on this lifestyle just to survive. We cannot stress enough the importance of settling the issue with fairness to "all" concerned. We only ask for fairness, to all people. Our food and the preservation of our food is an intricate part of our culture and tradition. Our ancestors are known for their longevity probably because our foods were prepared without artificial color, flavor or preservatives. She hopes the committee members will come to understand from the testimony today what the word "subsistence lifestyle" means. The late chair of the Alaska Native Sisterhood said to the Southeast Native Subsistence Commission, "Our food is essential to our physical, spiritual and emotional well being." Number 2188 REPRESENTATIVE DYSON asked Ms. Everson whether it is her position that access to traditional foods should be available to non-rural Alaskan Natives. MS. EVERSON replied, "Yes." Number 2202 REPRESENTATIVE BARNES asked Ms. Everson whether she lives in Juneau. MS. EVERSON replied, "Yes." REPRESENTATIVE BARNES stated Ms. Everson qualifies for subsistence at this time under the present laws. MS. EVERSON replied, "It sounds correct to me." REPRESENTATIVE BARNES stated under Title VIII of ANILCA Ms. Everson would not qualify. MS. EVERSON replied under Title VIII of ANILCA she would not qualify. REPRESENTATIVE BARNES stated there are some of us who feel that is not right. We have tried to work towards a solution that would take care of the needs of all people - urban or rural. Number 2242 SHARON LEE testified in Juneau. She is a resident of Juneau. She is a Tlingit. She has not always been very civically minded. She is just now getting into political issues and how they affect her people. She thanked the committee members for their patience today because they have been here since 9:00 a.m. It has been an ongoing battle. "You can't satisfy people all the time," she said. Our culture involves our spiritual well being. Our faith in God has always gone hand-n-hand with our culture. She prayed on her way to the capitol building because she felt intimidated to testify. But the Lord spoke and said that he loves her, and he will always be with and go before her. He also said that, "Your people are my people and I love you and I love my people, but I also love them." He gave her an image of the committee members and how much he loves them too. She wanted to patently say honor the agreements already made to the state and constitution. But, there have also been agreements made with the Native people - ANILCA and ANCSA. "It's like your between a rock and a hard place," she said. In addition, she is concerned about losing her people's heritage when she is starting to become proud of who she is. Subsistence has always been a part of our culture. She asked the committee members to keep all of the agreements in mind, honor them, listen to the concerns of the people testifying, and look to God to come up with a good, workable solution that would not only take care of Alaskans, but the original settlers. We were the people that were originally here which is one of the reasons why the United States government tries to look after our needs. TAPE 98-23, SIDE B Number 0000 REPRESENTATIVE GREEN stated that we can work out a solution just as God has worked out a solution for Ms. Lee. MS. LEE stated she felt bad because she had not prayed for the committee members so she did before arriving. REPRESENTATIVE GREEN replied we appreciate it sincerely. Number 0020 REPRESENTATIVE BARNES stated it has been a long day for everybody, and Ms. Lee's testimony is the perfect way to end it. Number 0050 CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN announced the bill will be heard again on Tuesday, March 3, 1998; and Thursday, March 5, 1998. ADJOURNMENT Number 0060 CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN adjourned the House Resources Standing Committee meeting at 2:35 p.m.