SENATE RESOURCES COMMITTEE Fairbanks Legislative Information Office March 29, 1995 10:05 a.m. MEMBERS PRESENT Senator Loren Leman, Chairman Senator Drue Pearce, Vice-chair Senator Rick Halford Senator Steve Frank Senator Lyman Hoffman Senator Georgianna Lincoln MEMBERS ABSENT Senator Robin Taylor OTHER MEMBERS PRESENT Senator Mike Miller COMMITTEE CALENDAR SENATE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 19 Requesting the Congress to amend the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act to clarify that the term "public lands" means only federal land and water and that any extension of federal jurisdiction onto adjacent land and water is expressly prohibited. PREVIOUS SENATE COMMITTEE ACTION No previous Senate action. WITNESS REGISTER Morris Thompson, President Doyon, Ltd. 201 First St. POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed SJR 19 Lynn Livengood Fairbanks Fish and Game Advisoy Committee POSITION STATEMENT: Supported SJR 19. Dick Bishop Alaska Outdoor Council P.O. Box 2790 Palmer, AK 99646 POSITION STATEMENT: Supported SJR 19. Ralph Seekins, President Alaska Wildlife Conservation Association 1625 Old Steese Hwy. Fairbanks, AK 99701 POSITION STATEMENT: Supported SJR 19. Lynette Clark Alaskan Independents Party POSITION STATEMENT: Supported SJR 19. Dexter Clark Alaska Reclamation Group POSITION STATEMENT: Supported SJR 19. Ken Vorsek Golden North Archers' Association POSITION STATEMENT: Supported SJR 19. Jerry Samm Alaska Federation of Natives 1577 C Street, Ste 100 Anchorage, AK 99501 POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed SJR 19. Chuck Grey Interior Wildlife Association POSITION STATEMENT: Supported SJR 19. Bonnie Williams Republican Party of Alaska POSITION STATEMENT: Supported SJR 19. Tom Scarborough Tanana Valley Sportmens' Assn. POSITION STATEMENT: Supported SJR 19. Dennis Petrie Alaska Sportfishing Association POSITION STATEMENT: Supported SJR 19. Joe Strunka P.O. Box 70550 Fairbanks, AK 99707 POSITION STATEMENT: Supported SJR 19. Greg Muhachuk Fairbanks Snow Travellers POSITION STATEMENT: Supported SJR 19. Byron Halley Chignik Dipnetters Association POSITION STATEMENT: Supported SJR 19. Harold Atlau Kwethluk Native Corp. POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed SJR 19. Jerry Isaac General Delivery Tanacross, AK 99776 POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed SJR 19. Jennifer Scott Lathrop High School 901 Airport Way Fairbanks, AK POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed SJR 19. Mark McFarland Lathrop High School 901 Airport Way Fairbanks, AK POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed SJR 19. Clem Clooten 1163 Linda Lou Lane Fairbanks, AK 99712 POSITION STATEMENT: Supported SJR 19. Ken Charlie P.O. Box 69 Minto, AK 99758 POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed SJR 19. Bertha Moses P.O. Box 29 Allakaket, AK 99720 POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed SJR 19. Johnson Moses P.O. Box 29 Allakaket, AK 99720 POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed SJR 19. Charles Parker Tanana Chiefs' Conference, Inc. 122 1st Avenue, Suite 600 Fairbanks, AK 99701 POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed SJR 19. Gary Moore Tanana Chiefs' Conference 122 1st Avenue, Suite 600 Fairbanks, AK 99701 POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed SJR 19. Eileen Newman Tanana Chiefs' Conference 122 1st Avenue, Suite 600 Fairbanks, AK 99701 POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed SJR 19. Patrick Madros P.O. Box 35 Nulato, AK 99765 POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed SJR 19. Benedict Jones P.O. Box 47 Koyukuk, AK 99754 POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed SJR 19. Andrew Jimmie P.O. Box 6 Minto, AK 99758 POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed SJR 19. Alice Carroll P.O. Box 24 Circle, AK 99733 POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed SJR 19. Orville Huntington P.O. Box 85146 Fairbanks, AK 99708 POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed SJR 19. Mike Walleri Fairbanks, AK 99701 POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed SJR 19. Sativa Quinn P.O. Box 254 Ester, AK 99725 POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed SJR 19. Kalupsak 1455 Skyline Dr. Fairbanks, AK 99712 POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed SJR 19. Melinda Chase P.O. Box 82960 Fairbanks, AK 99708 POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed SJR 19. Oscar Frank 1522 21 st Ave., #5 Fairbanks, AK 99701 POSITION STATEMENT: Commented on SJR 19. James Nageak 3936 Birch Lane Fairbanks, AK 99709 POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed SJR 19. William Walters 2682 Gold Hill Rd. Fairbanks, AK 99701 POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed SJR 19. Robert Silas P.O. Box 436 Northway, AK 99764 POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed SJR 19. Hugh Doogan 359 Slater St. Fairbanks, AK 99701 POSITION STATEMENT: Supported SJR 19. Paul Gregory Ruralcap P.O. Box 393 Bethel, AK 99559 POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed SJR 19. Stanton Katchatag Ruralcap P.O. Box 268 Unalaska, AK 99684 POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed SJR 19. Stanley Ned Allakaket, AK 99720 POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed SJR 19. Jonathan Solomon Ruralcap P.O. Box 98 Ft. Yukon, AK 99740 POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed SJR 19. Myra Olsen Ruralcap P.O. Box 74 Egegik, AK 99579 POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed SJR 19. Shirley Lee 122 1st Ave., Suite 600 Fairbanks, AK 99767 POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed SJR 19. Delbert Rexford Barrow, AK 99723 POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed SJR 19. Lee Titus Ruralcap P.O. Box 406 Northway, AK 99764 POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed SJR 19. Paul Mayo 1500 Market Street Fairbanks, AK POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed SJR 19. Louise McManus Interior Airboat Association 3350 Thomas, #75 Fairbanks, AK 99701 POSITION STATEMENT: Supported SJR 19. Amanda Alton 1426 4th Ave. Fairbanks, AK 99701 POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed SJR 19. Karl Eklund 2497 Steese Hwy. Fairbanks, AK 99712 POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed SJR 19. Joe Strunka P.O. Box 70550 Fairbanks, AK 99707 POSITION STATEMENT: Supported SJR 19. Don Garrett Fairbanks, AK POSITION STATEMENT: Supported SJR 19. Dave Lazey Stevens Village, AK 99774 POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed SJR 19. Marjorie Mayo 181 Hall St. Fairbanks, AK 99701 POSITION STATEMENT: Commented on subsistence. Donald Stern 105 Dunbar Ave. Fairbanks, AK 99701 POSITION STATEMENT: Supported SJR 19. Mary Nordale, Attorney Alaska Miners Association 100 Cushman, Suite 311 Anchorage, AK 99701 POSITION STATEMENT: Supported SJR 19. Warren Matumeak P.O. Box 69 Barrow, AK 99723 POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed SJR 19. Roxanne Frank 1578 Bridgewater Fairbanks, AK POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed SJR 19. Harold Gillam 104 2nd Ave. Fairbanks, AK 99701 POSITION STATEMENT: Supported SJR 19. Pat Fox P.O. Box 74596 Fairbanks, AK POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed SJR 19. Shirley Sager 650 9th Ave. Fairbanks, AK 99701 POSITION STATEMENT: Supported SJR 19. Robert Drozda 1125 Powellite Dr. Fairbanks, AK 99712 POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed SJR 19. Michael Dubowski 5751 Old Valdez Tr. Salina, AK 99714 POSITION STATEMENT: Supported SJR 19. Jack Ferguson 1829 Jack St. Fairbanks, AK 99709 POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed SJR 19. Vernon Miller 1455 Skyline Dr. Fairbanks, AK 99712 POSITION STATEMENT: Commented on native issues. ACTION NARRATIVE TAPE 95-30, SIDE A Number 001 SJR 19 AMEND ANILCA TO DEFINE PUBLIC LANDS CHAIRMAN LEMAN called the Senate Resources meeting to order at 10:05 a.m. in Fairbanks. He announced testimony would be taken first from those people representing organizatons by the Committee who were invited, and then from the public. He stated SJR 19 asks Congress to clarify the definition of "public lands," among other things. The issue is not subsistence rights, but a state's rights issue over who will manage Alaska's resources, he said. Number 120 SENATOR LINCOLN commented she is anxious to hear testimony from the general public and is extremely disappointed the testimony is "listen only" to the outlying areas. She noted a hearing would be held in Soldotna at a later date to take testimony from the rest of the state. She expressed disappointment that committee packets contained selected excerpts from the Attorney General's presentation to the Joint House and Senate on March 8, and not the complete testimony given at the hearing. Number 159 SENATOR HOFFMAN stated whenever the issue of access to fish and game resources arises, the question of subsistence comes into play. In asking Congress to change ANILCA, the issue of subsistence and access to fish and game resources is raised. Regarding equal access, the Legislature made changes to the Alaska Constitution regarding preference to fisheries. He believed if the state wants to manage fish and game resources, changes should be made to the state constitution. Number 180 SENATOR HALFORD noted his support for SJR 19, and remarked federal management has been a disaster on land management and will be on water management if the state loses the Katie John case. He explained how the following court decisions are affecting management decisions. The court issued a decision in the Bobby case stating subsistence cannot be limited at all until all other uses are eliminated. The Roe case in Southeast Alaska allows subsistence users to sell subsistence resources for cash under customary and traditional trade for up to $15,000 for an individual sale, and $75,000 in the aggregate. He does not believe that was the intention of the original preference, however if that kind of standard is applied, the management structure cannot possibly work. He believed the state could deal with subsistence under the Alaska Constitution, but amendments need to be made to ANILCA because the federal system, as designed by the courts, does not work. Number 200 SENATOR FRANK commented ANILCA needs to be amended to make it work and that subsistence can be made to work without a constitutional amendment. He noted Governor Hickel's subsistence council produced a lot of good work, and he expressed disappointment that the work did not move forward. He supported SJR 19. Number 209 SENATOR MILLER, prime sponsor of SJR 19, stated he does not believe SJR 19 to be a challenge to the federal subsistence preference; it is a simple resolution requesting Congress to recommit to obligations made to the state of Alaska in the Statehood Compact, and to reconfirm that ANILCA was not intended to preempt state management of fish and game resources. The issue is one of state's rights; if the federal government is able to change items in the Statehood Compact without legislative participation, a dangerous precedent will be set. The Alaska Legislature needs to make a statement opposing such federal authority, otherwise other state authority issues will be forfeited. Secondly, SJR 19 requests that Congress reaffirm its original intent and amend ANILCA to clarify the term "federal lands" so that no misinterpretation by the court system can occur. Number 244 SENATOR PEARCE, co-sponsor of SJR 19, thanked the committee for holding public hearings throughout the state. She is convinced the state is facing a major crisis - the loss of its right to manage fish and wildlife resources. ANILCA contained a provision that created a priority for subsistence taking of fish and wildlife by rural Alaskan residents on federal public land. The intent of Congress was that Alaska would assume management on all lands in the state by meeting the requirements of ANILCA's Title VIII. However, an Alaska Supreme Court ruling determined Alaska to be out of compliance with federal law, and a District Court ruling authorized the federal government to preempt state management in navigable waters. This is a complete reversal by the federal government which initially limited public lands in ANILCA to federal lands and waters. Changes to Title VIII of ANILCA are essential to correct flaws and put Alaska in compliance with its mandates. Because no immediate consensus on the ultimate solution is possible, she has co-sponsored SJR 19, as it is one area in which a consensus can be reached quickly. SJR 19 does not challenge the subsistence priority on federal lands and waters; it asks Congress to reconfirm state jurisdiction on state and private lands and waters. The alternative would be to allow the federal courts to continue their course of selectively revising the intent of Congress. CHAIRMAN LEMAN announced the committee would take public testimony. Number 325 MORRIS THOMPSON, President of Doyon Limited, testified in opposition to SJR 19. He stated his disappointment that the issue is being defined as one of state's rights and that no one has discussed the fact that the state court has struck down legislative actions to resolve this issue. He expressed dismay that the hearings were scheduled in urban areas, and that this meeting is being held in Fairbanks while the Village Participation Conference is occurring in Juneau. He stated people living in rural areas should have a hunting and fishing preference in times of shortage since urban residents have the opportunity to shop at food stores, and to work for wages. Many village people have chosen to live a traditional Alaska lifestyle, and depend on subsistence for their food and to sustain their culture. Subsistence differentiates rural Alaskans from people who live in other parts of the state. It is a source of pride and identity, requires self dependence, builds character, and provides a model for youth. He discussed the history of ANILCA, and Congress' expectation that the state would protect those people practicing a traditional subsistence lifestyle. Congress granted a subsistence priority on lands subject to federal jurisdiction in ANILCA to protect that lifestyle, but consciously excluded fishing from the rural subsistence preference. It also provided an incentive for state management of resources throughout the state, by requiring a rural preference. For a decade, a serious subsistence problem did not exist and the state operated under the ANILCA mandates. The Legislature enacted a subsistence law, which was ratified by the voters. The problem occurred in 1989, when the Alaska Supreme Court ruled the subsistence law unconstitutional. He spoke in support of an amendment to the state constitution to be approved by the voters, to resolve the issue as SJR 19 does not respect subsistence and will not gain Congressional support. Number 453 SENATOR LEMAN noted, in response to Mr. Thompson's remark about the committee schedule, the meeting was planned for the previous Saturday, but due to schedule conflicts with other legislators, the meeting was rescheduled. This was the only time to hold the meeting before the middle of April. He apologized for the conflict with the Village Participation Conference. Number 467 Lynn Livengood, a member of the Fairbanks Advisory Committee to the Alaska Board of Fish and Game, testified in support of SJR 19. The Fairbanks Advisory Committee has had a long standing commitment to equal opportunity for all Alaskans for Alaska's wildlife resources and opposes federal management of those resources. The issue is one of state's rights; Alaska cannot allow the federal government to create an apartheid division on subsistence. The Alaska Constitution needs to be upheld and supported at all costs. ANILCA did not alter the Statehood Compact with the federal government and needs to be amended to recognize that Alaska has subsistence statutes that give preference to those who rely upon the resources in times of shortages. The questions on subsistence license applications have a residency-weighted preference. The current federal rural preference wrongfully assumes that only rural residents rely upon subsistence. He questioned whether the rural preference is a racial preference, since many of the advocates of the rural preference talk in terms of conserving a culture, heritage, or tradition. ANILCA extinguished all aboriginal claims, and gave all Alaskans equal access to Alaska's wildlife resources. He stated rural residents have an easier time trying to preserve their culture and hunt in rural areas than native peoples in urban areas. He believes the creation of a preference encourages racism. Number 544 MITCH DEMIENTIEFF, Chairman of the Legislation Litigation Committee for the Tanana Chiefs Conference, testified that SJR 19 would deepen the chasm between federal and state management of resources. He believes it is difficult enough to manage Alaska's resources under one management system, and impossible to manage it under the current system. By further entrenching that system, the resource will suffer. It took a great deal of time to train the state to manage the resources under state management, and many mistakes were made. He reiterated his opinion that single management is critical. TAPE 95-30, SIDE B DICK BISHOP, representing the Alaska Outdoor Council, testified in support of SJR 19. He discussed the membership and purpose of the Alaska Outdoor Council: to advocate sound management of fish and game resources, and to maintain public access to these resources consistent with the Alaska Constitution. The Council supports subsistence uses and lifestyles, but opposes an arbitrary, closed class type of priority, such as a rural one. The Council also strongly supports the individual right to keep and bear arms. He believes SJR 19 targets and resolves the confusion created by the construction of ANILCA. Mr. Bishop stated the Council believes there is an insidious invasion of fish and game management authority by the federal government, and applauds the Legislature for addressing the issue. The federal government is not authorized by Congress to override the Statehood Act and Compact, nor is it authorized to extend federal management to state and private lands or waters. Two attorney general opinions support this position. In 1982, Assistant Attorney General Robert Price prepared a legal analysis stating, "however the Secretary has no authority to regulate fish and wildlife by setting seasons, bag limits, or means or methods of harvest." The second analysis by Paul Lanzini in 1992, a nationally prominent fish and game lawyer and former Dept. of Law attorney, was done at the request of the Alaska Outdoor Council, specifically to address the question of whether the federal government had authority to extend management to non-federal lands. Mr. Lanzini concluded "ANILCA makes no provision for extension of federal regulatory power over non-federal lands and waters." Additionally, he stated, "Congress has not exerted its property clause power in ANILCA so as to authorize an extension of federal management of fish and wildlife to state and private lands and waters, even after the federal government assumes administration of the ANILCA subsistence management system." Number 523 SENATOR HALFORD asked people providing testimony to suggest methods of dealing with the definitions provided by the federal courts. To find a solution, the Southeast Roe case, the sale for cash in large quantities, the Lime Village Case, and the proposition that all other uses must first be eliminated, must be dealt with. A constitutional amendment will not resolve the issues created by those court cases. RALPH SEEKINS, representing the Alaska Wildlife Conservation Association (AWCA), stated that AWCA believes the solution to this issue is already contained in the state constitution in the phrase, "maximum sustained yield for human harvest." If the state was not giving a higher priority to predators than to humans, the problem of how to divide up the remaining animals would not exist. According to the Alaska Department of Fish and Game, more than 600,000 moose, caribou, and sheep babies will be born in the state this year, and in excess of 87 percent will be food for predators, not for humans. The human harvest is less than three percent of the harvestable surplus every year. If the Constitution is amended, or ANILCA is changed, and no guarantee of the right to manage the state's fish and game resources occurs, nothing will be gained. AWCA believes the federal government's intent is to manage fish and game in Alaska, and that they should not be able to do so unless they make those same decisions in all other states. The AWCA does not believe in apartheid by zip code, and remaining divisive on this issue will only empower anti-hunting groups. He reiterated the answer is in providing the resource for the people, not predators, and in granting a priority to those people who rely on the resource, regardless of location. He discussed the fact that only 10 percent of registered voters and permanent fund dividend recipients statewide purchase hunting licenses, and the percentage is the same for rural and urban areas. Those statistics do not indicate a higher rural reliance on fish and game resources. the AWCA supports SJR 19 as a step to protect state's rights. LYNETTE CLARK, representing the Alaskan Independence Party (AIP), testified in support of SJR 19. She asked that copies of the Statehood Compact, the Alaska Constitution, and the Omnibus Act be sent to those noted in the final section of SJR 19 to show them the contracts they entered into in 1958, and other dates shortly thereafter. The passage of ANILCA and ANCSA was in direct violation of Alaska's Statehood Compact and has driven a large wedge between people in the state. DEXTER CLARK, representing the Alaska Reclamation Group, made an attempt to stake a claim to a road that they believe belongs to the state of Alaska, but was told by the federal government that was an inadvertent act. He read a poem by Garrison Keillor about liars. He noted the seriousness of the issue lies in its divisiveness. KEN VORSEK, testified on behalf of the Golden North Archers Association (GNAA). He disagreed that people should be denied equal opportunity to experience and utilize wildlife because of the color of one's skin or because of one's income level. ANILCA flies in the face of a constitutional guarantee that all people should be free and treated equally, by giving preferential treatment to one race, or locale of people, over other American citizens. The only way to change that discriminatory policy is to change ANILCA. Number 229 JERRY SAMM, representing the Alaska Federation of Natives, testified in opposition to SJR 19. He is from a village six miles above the Arctic Circle, only accessible by airplane. Rural residents must provide food for their families, and the main source of that food is acquired by fishing and hunting. Government regulations do not always coincide with the villagers' need for food, therefore they do not follow them. The villagers only protection lies with ANILCA. Rural Alaskans are aboriginals who rely on subsistence food. Number 176 CHUCK GREY, Interior Wildlife Association, supported SJR 19. He felt rural people have always been taken care of in the area of game management. Seasons have been set later in rural areas so that people can take game when they can keep it. More recently, large areas of interior Alaska are closed to urban hunters. He commented on the Babbitt case in which Judge Holland stated he could not find anything in the Congressional record to support federal management of game in Alaska, but felt Congress made a mistake, so granted it the right to do so. Number 76 SENATOR LEMAN introduced a group of students from Lathrop High School who were attending the meeting. BONNIE WILLIAMS, representing the Republican Party of Alaska, gave the following testimony in support of SJR 19. The U.S. Bill of Rights was ratified in 1791; those 10 amendments to the Constitution spell out our sacred God- given rights that take precedence over anything in the Constitution, and anything that may be conceived by Congress, the President, the courts, or states. These are inalienable rights, and are what make us free Americans in a nation of law. They spell out our rights and say that we are equal under the law, equal in our access to those rights. In the 1850's, realizing that slavery was incompatible with these ideals and truths forming the foundation of our nation, the Republican Party of America was formed, by Abraham Lincoln, another thoughtful man of the age. By 1860, we were locked in a terrible civil war, with Republicans on one side saying freedom to the individual - no slavery, and with Southerners on the other side saying states' rights were more important. We all know who won. The 13th Amendment to the Constitution banned slavery forever. The 14th Amendment said that all laws applied equally to all people, regardless of race. The 15th Amendment said that the right to vote could not be denied by reason of race, color, or previous condition of servitude. In 1919, the 19th Amendment said the right to vote could not be denied by reason of sex. In 1971, the 26th Amendment said that the right to vote for those 18 and older could not be denied by reason of age. The Constitution of the state of Alaska, written in 1956, reflects these ideals of equality, this culminating pinnacle for which men have died time and time again, knowing they were right. Article 1, Section 1, states: this Constitution is dedicated to the principles that all persons have a natural right to life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness and the enjoyment of the rewards of their own industry, that all persons are equal and entitled to equal rights, opportunities, and protection under the law, and that all persons have corresponding obligations to the people and to the state. Section 3 states: no person is to be denied the enjoyment of any civil or political right because of race, color, creed, sex, or national origin. Article 8, Section 3 states: wherever occurring in their natural state, fish, wildlife and waters are reserved to the people for common use. The Republican Party of Alaska places the individual, and his rights and responsibilities, over, above, and higher than those of any collective. We are the party that fought to free the slaves, that first nominated a woman for national office, that first elected women to state office, that today have women in leadership roles in both state House and Senate, something only one other state has ever attained. ANILCA flies against the beliefs of the Republican Party, and sets back over 200 years of solid efforts to achieve equality. It divides Alaskans into classes, and demands that one class of citizens receive more than other classes. It erases equality. TAPE 95-31, SIDE A MS. WILLIAMS continued. ANILCA must be amended, restore the management of fish and game to Alaska, and together, with open hearts, address the problems of subsistence, as Alaskans, for Alaska. ANILCA is wrong, it contains inequalities, basic unmistakable unfairness. We can't build the future of our state on inequality or unfairness. We cannot live together in respect in a condition of inequality and unfairness. We cannot achieve justice, for anyone at all, if there is injustice for some. Our forefathers knew this before, and during, the Civil War. They knew it in the Brown decision in 1956, they knew it in the Civil Rights Act of 1963, they knew it in the Molly Hootch decision. There must be justice for all, or there is justice for none. I urge you to approve SJR 19, and I urge Congress to amend ANILCA. Number 059 TOM SCARBOROUGH, representing the Tanana Valley Sportmens' Association (TVSA), testified. He expressed his gratitude to the committee for holding the hearing because the problems caused by the federal government are much larger than the subsistence issue. Now that the subsistence issue has entered into the arena of fisheries, it has grabbed the attention of a much larger sector of the state. He believes the core issue to be the Constitution, and problems with ANILCA to be a by-product. The federal government must be brought back to within the bounds of our federal Constitution, and the debate needs to center around how best to accomplish that. Until then, the Katie John case and the Lime Village case will not be resolved, and the federal government will continue to ignore the state's requests. Judge Holland violated federal law when he fabricated his decision on the Babbitt case. Other western states are a light year ahead, in how they are dealing with the federal government. Many groups have organized to debate what needs to be done to bring the huge federal bureaucracy back within the constraints of the U.S. Constitution. There are only 18 elements the federal government is allowed to manage. TVSA has been involved in this issue for many years, and they support SJR 19 as a first step. Number 156 DENNIS PETRIE, representing the Alaska Sportfishing Association, and the Valdez Charter Fishing Association, testified in support of SJR 19. The state of Alaska should have the right to manage all fish and game resources, and all Alaskans should be treated equally. Currently, the federal government manages 98.5 percent of the fisheries off the coast of Alaska. Last year, under federal management, there were over 740 million pounds of by-catch, other areas have been stripped of crab, and the stellar sea lion population has decreased substantially. The fisheries nationwide are being destroyed, under federal management. SJR 19 needs to pass to show Alaskans want state management, as well as bills changing the Board of Fish and Game so that everyone can sit down as an equal to resolve the issues. JOE STRUNKA, read the following testimony from Bill Dunham of the Delta Sportsmens' Club, for the record. I would like to make the following comments concerning SJR 19, requesting Congress to amend ANILCA. I cannot attend the teleconference in Fairbanks, and would like to have these comments read into the record by another person. 1. SJR 19 needs to be passed as quickly as possible. Subsistence priority on federal land and elsewhere in Alaska is in conflict with our constitutional rights as Alaskans and is also in conflict with our rights of equal protection under the law. No Alaskan should have more rights to a state resource than any other Alaskan, regardless of where he resides in the state, and regardless of any other artificial means of discrimination based on race, sex, etc. The federal government should have no right to intervene in this because this issue is not directly addressed to the U.S. Constitution, and so should be left to the state of Alaska, Bill of Rights Amendment 10. I also think a good case could be made that giving subsistence priority privileges to some Alaskans and denying them to other Alaskans constitutes a violation of the U.S. Constitution Amendment 14, Section 1, which states that, "No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of the citizens of the United States." 2. Everyone understands the necessity of a stranded person's need to stay alive on whatever he may scrounge, but in other cases forget it. Subsistence should not be an addition to our current welfare programs. We already have fish and game licensing requirements which require low fees for indigents. Anyone who says he could not eat well for a year under Alaska's regular hunting license regulations is a liar. Contrary to Mother Earth News fantasies, almost no one can live off the fat of the land without a fair dose of food stamps, energy assistance, health services, AFDC, the dividend, and sometimes a rich Aunt Martha who helps out from time to time. In Alaska, people don't really subsist on caribou or moose any more than they subsist on cottontails in Illinois. The federal government needs to be told this in no uncertain terms. Please pass SJR 19. While it is only a first step, at least it is in the right direction. GREG MUHACHUK testified for the Fairbanks Snow Travellers in support of both SJR 19 and HJR 33. He noted a clear definition of "public land" is necessary, and as a state's rights issue; federal managers need to be kept within their defined boundaries. He took great exception to comments made in rural areas, claiming the people wanting to amend ANILCA are anti-native. He believed there may be a handful of people who truly live a subsistence lifestyle, but very few. He concluded that instead of fighting over a rural priority, all Alaskans need to work together to manage fish and game to prevent shortages. BYRON HALLEY, Chignik Dipnetters Association, gave the following testimony in support of SJR 19. When Alaska became a state in 1959, it was given the right to manage fish and wildlife by the Statehood Compact. The Compact cannot be legally changed without the consent of both parties and the Alaska party consists of the residents of Alaska. Alaskans never voted or agreed to give up the right to manage Alaska's fish and wildlife. The federal government has illegally broken this compact by taking over the management of fish and wildlife on federal lands in Alaska, to manage subsistence. They say the state of Alaska is not in compliance because we do not have a rural preference in the state constitution. Congress accepted the Alaska Constitution as written in 1959. When Alaska entered into the Union it was on equal footing with all of the other states. The Compact guaranteed authority for fish and wildlife management for the State of Alaska. The Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of Agriculture have threatened the preemption of fish and wildlife management on state and private lands and water which would be another breach of the Compact. The preemption authority has never been granted to these Secretaries in ANILCA. The navigable waters rights were given to the state of Alaska, by law, by the Congress of the United States, not by the Secretary of the Interior or Agriculture. ANILCA needs to be amended to make sure that "public lands" mean only federal public lands and waters and the rural preference classification should be taken out of the Act. The removal of the rural classification from ANILCA will not stop subsistence. The state of Alaska still has a subsistence law. When Governor Tony Knowles dropped the state's lawsuit of Alaska vs. Babbitt, he went against the Alaska Constitution, which he swore to uphold, and the state's rights to manage fish and wildlife resources. This resolution is just one step on the road to get the state's rights back that have been illegally taken from the state of Alaska by the Secretary of the Interior. HAROLD ATLAU, General Manager of Kwethluk, a native corporation which owns the lands on the Kikuk River, stated he is in support of equality, however people in the village depend on wildlife and continue to be raised dependent on the resources. If more people come to Alaska, it will threaten the way of life in the village. There are fewer job opportunities in the village, so the people rely on the resources more. He fears the village people will be crowded out of their economic base, their resources, in the future. He discussed how village life is different from urban life. JERRY ISAAC, President of the Tanacross Village Council, gave the following testimony in opposition to SJR 19. Many times over the years testimony has been taken on this issue, which is based upon race. He agrees the U.S. constitutional ideals are based upon the protection of individual rights, however as a minority, he is forced to revert to the check and balance system provided by the Constitution to safeguard his people's rights. He is also in agreement with the comments made about the right to be self governing. The native leadership has been talking about sovereignty and individual liberties and self government for a number of years. The Alaska public promotes one side of the issue only. The State of Alaska has not been very supportive of native views, that is why he relies on the ideals of the theory of the check and balance system. Without that, the native rights issues and ideals will never see the light of day. He does not contend that others do not have the right to fish and hunt, he would defend others' right to do so. Many of his family members have died while defending the U.S. Constitution in wars overseas, yet his people are not treated in accordance with this sacred document. The Legislature is obligated, as a representative body of all interests in the state, to end divisiveness over this issue, yet it contributes to it. He agrees the state must regain management rights of fish and game in Alaska, but not until he feels free and safe from discrimination in this state. TAPE 95-31, SIDE B JENNIFER SCOTT, a student from Lathrop High School, testified in opposition to SJR 19. She believes the issue to be state's rights, not race. Within the state's rights issue, the distinction is one of a person's economic base and way of life. Discrimination has already been established in favor of commercial fishermen in the Alaska Constitution. To respect another group's economic way of life would not be discriminatory. Regarding federal jurisdiction over land management, that control was taken from the state to protect a people or way of life that has existed for a long time. No one's right to hunt or fish should be taken away, however there is a big difference between sport fishing and living on what one catches. All Alaskans have the right to live off the land, if they so choose. MARK McFARLAND, a senior from Lathrop High School, stated he believes SJR 19 would squelch the subsistence lifestyle that people who live in rural Alaska need to live. Equality needs to be based on economics since those people cannot compete with hunters with an income of $50,000 per year for their needs. Native Alaskans have never been asked for their consent to legislation that has been passed by the state, and they never asked to be invaded by the white, European culture. It is difficult to believe that taking away their subsistence rights would equalize rural residents with urban dwellers. The people who were here for thousands of years have some right to the resources. They are not able to compete in an equitable fashion with those who have gone to college and have steady jobs. Number 546 SENATOR LEMAN thanked all of the Lathrop High School students who attended the hearing for doing so. SENATOR LINCOLN commented she believes youth to be our most important resource; they should be working on consensus building for SJR 19. CLEM CLOOTEN testified in support of SJR 19 because the state must continue to fight for state's rights. KEN CHARLIE, Chief of Minto, testified in opposition to both SJR 19 and HJR 33, as they lay the groundwork for removing protections to Alaska native people under Title 8 of ANILCA. He discussed the loss of wildlife in the Minto flats and other areas around Fairbanks due to population growth. SJR 19 would diminish protection from further encroachment. Number 574 BERTHA MOSES, representing Allakaket and other rural people who live a subsistence lifestyle, testified. She was raised with a subsistence lifestyle, in a large family, in an area with no jobs, and few furbearing animals. She and her husband raised 11 children with a subsistence lifestyle. They used all parts of the animal to make clothing and food, which most people still do. She stated not everyone who lives a subsistence lifestyle uses food stamps or other forms of public assistance, as some individuals want to be independent. She added the idea of trophy hunting is foreign to native people. She noted she and her husband lived in Fairbanks for 11 years but had to have food from the village, which was provided by her children. The subsistence lifestyle is their way of life. She spoke for all people who live that lifestyle, not only native people. JOHNSON MOSES, an Allakaket resident, stated around 1930, there were very few animals around Allakaket. The animal population had been depleted around the turn of the century and the villagers lived on small game and birds. Nothing was wasted, tools were made from the bones. The game wardens threatened to imprison him in Fairbanks if he hunted out of season. There was very little communication between the village people and the game warden. He learned how to survive in the forest from his grandfather, who raised him as a child. Number 338 CHARLES PARKER, Economic Development Specialist for the Tanana Chiefs Conference, gave the following testimony: In the past decade, public awareness of crucial environmental issues has grown dramatically. The average person has come to understand the detrimental affects that human existence has on the rest of the natural world. As technology continues to advance, often with unforeseen hazardous side effects, and the world's human population continues to grow at an alarming rate, the animal and plant populations continue to be stressed beyond reasonable limits. Even today, state and federal agencies are scrambling to define what a "sustainable yield" is. Imagine 30 years from now when the earth's population has reached staggering levels, there will be even more pressure on an even smaller resource base. There is no possible way for unlimited equal access to be considered sustainable in the long term. This means that someone has to decide who gets first access in times of shortage, and there will be times of shortage. Now when people start lining up for some social service programs, they have to qualify according to certain regulations, due to the fact that there are limited resources available. The primary qualification is need. By the same logic, when there are not enough animals to go around for everyone who wants to go out hunting, who gets first priority for what is available? Is it the sport hunter who just wants a rack for his trophy wall? Is it the gentleman who doesn't want to go to Disneyland and decides he wants to go out hunting instead? Is it the person who is tired of burgers and steaks and wants to dine on a little moose meat? I'm sure there are many people testifying before you today who would, or already have, said yes to one of these. They are wrong, it is the family living in rural Alaska who depends upon this resource for their very survival. There are very few grocery stores, and even fewer jobs out in the rural areas. No one questions the fact that their need is greater. So then they turn around and try to hold your attention with a little catch phrase, such as state's rights, equality, individual rights. How can these people espouse state's rights while failing to consider the state's responsibilities. As the tribal governments have already learned, you have to prove that you are capable of handling increased responsibilities before you are given more control. The current intentions of SJR 19 will only serve as proof that the state is not capable of looking after its own people, and is only looking out for wealthy special interests. On the other hand, some people start screaming for individual rights and equality. Do you remember when people used to be allowed to smoke cigarettes and cigars on airplanes and in all of the restaurants? When that was taken away, people were using the same arguments. They lost, however, because by exercising their rights, they were endangering the welfare of others. That situation is remarkably comparable to the issue before you today. Regardless of today's outcome, I for one, would be more than happy to give up my rights to hunt, if exercising that right will give food to someone who needs it much more than I do. In closing, I would simply state that the needs of the many heavily outweigh the desires of the few. Number 411 SENATOR HALFORD stated that one of the things the Legislature has a problem with is the way the federal courts have defined the existing system, i.e. the Lime Village case and the "for sale" case. He asked Mr. Parker if he believed the subsistence resource should be for sale in commercial quantities for cash. MR. PARKER replied, "No, what we are talking about here today is subsistence, not commercial interests." SENATOR HALFORD agreed with that interpretation and felt that has to be dealt with in the federal act. SENATOR HALFORD stated the Lime Village case requires all other uses be eliminated before subsistence use can be limited. He asked Mr. Parker if that was an interpretation intended by the original act. MR. PARKER replied, "As I understand it, yes." SENATOR HALFORD explained the Babbitt case requires there to be a year round season with no bag limit and no restrictions on subsistence before any other uses can be allowed. MR. PARKER stated he does not necessarily agree with that but believes subsistence needs should be met prior to commercial or sport needs. SENATOR HALFORD asked if language that allows the opportunity for subsistence needs first, without preventing any other harvest, as long as a reasonable opportunity to meet subsistence needs first exists, would be acceptable to Mr. Parker. MR. PARKER replied, "I think you are getting into a pretty gray area there, defining what the subsistence needs are, but in theory, that is correct." SENATOR HALFORD commented those are the two extremes the Legislature is stuck with from the federal courts. Those two cases have defined subsistence for us in a way that many of the original advocates did not intend. GARY MOORE, Planning Department Director for the Tanana Chiefs Conference, testified in opposition to SJR 19 and made the following comments: SJR 19 is an endangerment to subsistence of which our villages and first inhabitants of this land, the aboriginal native people of Alaska, severely depend upon. This argument has been repeated over and over by native people to the federal and state governments, for several generations. The native people's request to protect subsistence over the last century appear to have fallen on deaf ears. This is the case today with the legislative majority currently in power. The subsistence battle which is about to carry on into the next century has eliminated any hope the state government would finally do what is right for the villages of the state. Since the days of the territorial Legislature, the state has done nothing but consume the land, natural and wildlife resources, and has pushed cultural languages and traditions to the brink of extinction. The promises made to native peoples in the past have either been broken or ignored. Those in power today, and other sport hunting groups, say they cannot be held accountable for what their ancestors may have done or said in the past. The outspoken voices of sportsmen say that we all should have equal access and not discriminate based on race. The equal access clause, as stated in the Alaska Constitution, which native people did not participate in drafting, will fail the test of time. As the state continues to grow in population, we would see our hunting and fishing seasons dwindled to but a few days and hours under the equal access clause. With increased hunting pressure by more and more people, we will see less of a resource available to anyone. The sportsmen in this state cry discrimination when, or if, any group has more of an opportunity to harvest wildlife resources before them. I say let them cry discrimination because their argument is completely off track and will lead them nowhere. The basis for their arguments center only on a desire to hang more trophies on their walls, and has absolutely nothing to do with the culture or sustaining life. During the passage of ANSCA, Congress had full intentions of protecting native peoples' subsistence uses in Alaska. I used the term "native, not because it is based on anything racial, I used the term only because the relationship between the federal government and native tribes is unique and based on Congress' historical relationship with once sovereign political entities, the native tribes of North America. Native tribes should not be confused with minority groups that have never had any government to government relationship, treaties or agreements with the United States. In closing I will say what faith and trust I once had in our state government to do what is morally right for native people has all but disappeared. You have shown us that you are incapable of being objective. Members of our state legislative majority seem only concerned with power, money, prestige, and personal gain, and appear to be bulldozing a path to get there regardless of the consequences. If you choose to pass SJR 19 then I say we are better off with federal management of Alaska's resources. Additionally, Alaska's tribes should recommend to the Secretary of the Interior that a tribal preference be incorporated in ANILCA so that protection of subsistence uses by native people will be guaranteed to the greatest extent possible under the law. Native people are tired of defending themselves and their culture against a hostile state government, and special interest groups are intent on destroying all native cultures. I say the days of native people being forced to compromise their lives, cultures, and resources are over. If we continue this destructive path we will compromise ourselves right out of existence. Number 331 EILEEN NEWMAN testified in opposition to SJR 19. She stated she grew up in a large family, dependent on subsistence, in Rampart. That is still the lifestyle of the majority of families in Rampart today. She commented on the influx of urban hunters into Rampart during her childhood and the decrease in the food supply. She agreed with the argument that any person, regardless of race, has the right to subsist if it is the only means of providing for oneself. She questioned whether it is necessary to subsist, if the amount of money spent on one's hunting equipment is enough to purchase two cows. She asked committee members how they would feel if she drove into their backyards and shot the animal they planned to subsist on over the winter, so she could hang it on her wall. She urged the committee to work in the direction of a constitutional amendment. Number 270 PATRICK MADROS, representing the Village of Nulato, testified in opposition to SJR 19. He discussed how Alaska Natives were not consulted when Seward bought Alaska from the Russians; they have been discriminated against from the beginning. In order for state management to work, the state will have to determine the sustained yield and listen when subsistence users say the way the state is doing business with the fishing industry is hurting them. BENEDICT JONES, representing the Koyukuk Village Council, stated the Russians sold native land but not the resources, and that is what subsistence users are trying to protect. He stated if those resources are not protected now, there will be no food for his grandchildren to eat. He commented on the different types of food his people are used to eating and how they cannot adapt to eating beef. ANDREW JIMMIE, representing the village of Minto, testified in opposition to SJR 19. He stated he does not earn $100,000 per year and receives no food stamps. If SJR 19 passes, it will allow more hunters to come into the area around Minto, and the impact on the resources will create serious problems for local residents. He was born and raised in Minto, and all of his meals were obtained through subsistence. It is critical that those resources be protected. Number 272 ALICE CARROLL, representing the village of Circle, testified. She was raised in a fish camp, living mostly off of the land. It is difficult to continue to live a subsistence lifestyle in the village. ORVILLE HUNTINGTON of Huslia made the following comments. SJR 19 uses the same strategy that was used to try to keep natives from the state of Alaska out of the Statehood Act. If not for a few honorable non-native people, fighting for native sovereign rights during statehood, SJR 19 would never have come up before the Legislature. SJR 19 is disrespectful to native elders and their families in rural Alaska, who rely on fish and wildlife resources. The federal government regulates, they do not seek title to land and resources. SJR 19 will give a strong economic advantage to rich urban sportsmen. Rural Alaskans cannot afford to compete with them. Every urban person has the right to live in a rural area of Alaska. Let them do so and see how difficult it is to live on limited fish and wildlife resources. Strong native leaders are fighting for the only leverage they have to protect fish and wildlife resources: native sovereignty on native land. State jurisdiction over native lands will soon be a non-factor, because native people will have jurisdiction over their own land. TAPE 95-32, SIDE A Number 001 MIKE WALLERI, Fairbanks, said this resolution is nothing more than "federal bashing" and he is proud of the United States government. Our system of federalism is designed to do a couple of things to provide balance. When the states refuse to live up to their obligations, the federal government will step in to live up to its obligations. He said the State of Alaska has failed to deal with the subsistence issue; it has failed to meet the subsistence needs in rural Alaska in a practical fashion. MR. WALLERI said he thought the Babbitt case held that customary and traditional uses can only be limited if you eliminate other uses. It didn't state that rural people are totally unregulated. Number 83 SENATOR HALFORD asked if the Babbitt case said that customary and traditional uses could not be regulated until all other uses were essentially eliminated. MR. WALLERI replied that case basically held that you can't stop people who have been doing something for centuries unless you stop other people from interfering with that. They are not totally unregulated. He said one of the premier welfare reform programs has been operated by Tanana Chiefs Conference. In the depression, when the welfare system began, it was required to be instituted because the states failed in their responsibility to feed people. He has some concerns about trusting the state government, if the federal government steps back, when there has been a failure to deal with issues. SENATOR LEMAN said he didn't think it was the state's responsibility to provide welfare, but it's our responsibility as people and he congratulated the Tanana Chiefs Council for their efforts to provide help. Number 140 SATIVA QUIN, Staff Anthropologist for Tanana Chiefs, opposed SJR 19 and HJR 33. She said that the truly disadvantaged hunter is the one who has to travel hundreds of miles and hunt on unfamiliar territory. The people who head out from urban areas to go hunting will not have their life styles severely impacted by lack of access to particular moose the way a person from the area of the moose would be impacted. If rural preference did not exist, they would be at a disadvantage, because they do not have the means to travel a long distance to go hunting the way urban dwellers do. KALUPSAK said that the previous speakers might be part of an international Supreme Court case. He said he had terminated his association with Doyon. He said all of this is a bunch of hocus pocus. He thought it was about time the State of Alaska took care of the native people. Number 293 MELINDA CHASE, Fairbanks resident, opposed SJR 19 saying she spoke on behalf of herself and Anvik. She said that rural Alaska does not have the same resources as urban people. She said they have their hunting and fishing with which to provide for their families and this gives them a sense of pride. She said there is no equality in this process; it is a one way dialogue. SENATOR LEMAN said he would love to have a unlimited dialogue on this issue, but the legislature has just a limited amount of time in which to make it as fair a process as possible. Number 374 OSCAR FRANK, Fairbanks, said he grew up in Yakutat and he wanted to continue his traditional way of life. WILLIAM WALTERS said this is not a state's right issue, it is a federal issue. He said the U.S. Constitution specifically gives Congress the responsibility to take care of people it has displaced or taken over. The government has taken a trust responsibility and dealt with it through a rural subsistence preference. He has not, to this date, heard of an adequate, responsible substitute for that way of dealing with aboriginal rights that have been extinguished. SENATOR HALFORD asked how he would describe ANCSA. MR. WALTERS replied that it was a land claims settlement act. He said often when a conquering power takes over another community, the rights of that community are not specified. It's not clear how to settle that. SENATOR HALFORD said he agreed and he also thought, after reading the preamble, that it was a termination act that was later changed in terms of its further amendment. He thought it was made indian law substantially after. MR. WALTERS didn't agree. He said Congress intended to take care of native communities's subsistence needs. Doing away with the subsistence priority is a violation of the trust. MR. WALTERS said if there is a problem with the way Congress has dealt with that priority, Congress could fix the problem. Number 506 ROBERT SILAS, Galena, opposed SJR 19, because it focuses on the emotional issue of state's rights rather than the practical issue of meeting the needs of Alaska's people. He asked how else the native people would be guaranteed their subsistence way of life. He had a problem with first resolve in SJR 19. He said if ANILCA is a failure, and a deal is a deal, then we should go back to native preference which is part of the statehood compact. He said the resolution was misleading and misdirected. The teleconference transmission was broken at this point for a few minutes and Senator Leman's comments were inaudible. TAPE 95-32, SIDE B Number 563 MR. SILAS said that the committee was holding only three meetings on this issue and at the first two meetings the teleconference people can only listen. SENATOR HALFORD said there were a lot of disagreements and we all have the capacity to disagree without being disagreeable. SENATOR LINCOLN asked if he thought this resolution would be detrimental to the subsistence lifestyle of the rural communities and do you see this resolution as a subsistence resolution. MR. SILAS said he thought it was very difficult for rural communities and that it did impact the subsistence lifestyle. Number 533 HUGH DOOGAN supported SJR 19. He thought it got the rights of all Alaskans back in Alaska's hands and not the federal government. He said he grew up in the territorial days and he knows what the BIA did to the native people which was wrong. He knows what the federal government did in other areas to the Alaskan people as a whole. He said this resolution stood up for all people in the State of Alaska. PAUL GREGORY, Bethel resident, said ANILCA is the only federal preference legal force that protects subsistence and their cultural lifestyle. State law has no effective protection at all for native communities. Title 7 has to be implemented by federal courts and agencies whether the state complies with it or not. He didn't know how many times ANILCA was amended, but it must be resolved by Alaskans. Number 463 STANTON KATCHETAG, Unalakleet, said that ANILCA is the only protection subsistence users have. Opening ANILCA would weaken those protections. Native people in rural communities account for less than 4% of subsistence uses statewide. Most rural communities do not support the opening of ANILCA. Number 417 JAMES NAGEAK said he grew up in villages, but is a professor of the Yupik language at the University. He said at one point in his childhood he remembers the federal government telling the grandfather of his village that he couldn't hunt sheep any more, because that land was going to be the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. When a family is hungry, hunger knows no law. He wanted rural preference and for people to have more say in the law. STANLEY NED, Fairbanks, opposed SJR 19. JONATHAN SOLOMON, Ruralcap, said he grew up under federal jurisdiction on fish and game and they had more freedom then than they do now under state jurisdiction. When statehood was an issue, he voted against it. He opposed SJR 19, because it is the only protection native people have today. MYRA OLSEN, Egegik, said she is both a commercial fisherman and a subsistence user and is against SJR 19. Amending ANILCA would be detrimental to people in rural communities, and since this is so, people in rural communities should have a more fair and just opportunity to comment on the ramifications of this action. SENATOR HALFORD asked what happens to limited entry if the state loses the Katie John case and we have federal court cases saying you can sell commercially under customary trade up to $75,000 in the aggregate of value. He asked didn't that mean that someone without a permit could move to a coastal community and simply fish under subsistence. MS. OLSEN said it was a serious problem, and she felt that the State of Alaska was not in compliance and it's not the native's fault for wanting to use their resources. The state can and should get into compliance with Title 8 of ANILCA. SENATOR HALFORD said he wished the federal court's definition of what's legal under customary trade could be changed, but even if we passed a constitutional amendment to come into compliance with ANILCA, that definition would destroy limited entry unless it's changed. Number 254 SHIRLEY LEE opposed SJR 19. She said that the whole issue of efforts on fish and game has never been fully resolved. Whether this resolution is a state interest perspective or a subsistence bill, they are intertied. She thought it was a state's rights resolution, but in turn, how the state manages those resources will definitely affect tribal, aboriginal rights. Subsistence is the heart of the Alaska native culture. DELBERT REXFORD, Special Assistant to the mayor of the North Slope Borough, said he serves on the Subsistence Resource Commission of the Gates of the Arctic National Park. He said they are dealing with Title 8 of ANILCA and are in the efforts of trying to negotiate a cooperative agreement so they can manage their own resources. He said that Congress, in its wisdom, saw that Alaska was unique - geographically and ethnically - and that it needed special consideration. Congress enacted ANILCA to protect and provide rural preference. He urged continued support of ANILCA. Number 75 SENATOR LINCOLN asked him if he thought this was a subsistence bill and why. MR. REXFORD apologized saying that he is subsistence oriented, but this is in many ways a subsistence bill, because of the rural preference. He said the only thing they have to fall back on in small communities is having rural preference. TAPE 95-33, SIDE A Number 001 LEE TITUS, Chief of the Village of Northway, opposed SJR 19. He said that everyone has been asking for equal rights and access to the resources in the state without regard to the indigenous people who live in the rural areas. The current system is not adequate to solve these problems. The majority of the decisions made in Juneau are made by representatives and senators from either Fairbanks, Anchorage, or Juneau who live in an urban area. The majority of lawmakers don't know anything about how to make a living in the rural areas. He pointed out that the rural areas hadn't been provided public services the same as cities. He said the majority of rural communities in the state don't have adequate water and sanitation facilities in their community. Number 108 JAMIE COX said she married a "lower 48 American Indian" and lives in Alaska on the Forty Mile River. She thought that ANILCA was illegal; it is against both the state and federal constitution. She thanked the legislature for taking up the issue of state's rights. She said she also has been forced to live a different lifestyle than what she wanted to live. She said she can't go and live in rural areas like she would prefer. ANILCA does not protect subsistence users, MS. COX said. It unjustly protects little users whether they are subsistence users or not. She has five children and she would not deprive them of the lessons that being responsible for themselves by learning how to hunt and prepare caribou brings. She supported subsistence, but she didn't support rural priority. She has a great deal of respect for the native culture, but she doesn't know why they have to claim they have to have special rights to preserve their culture makes no sense to her. MS. COX said if the rural native folks truly want sovereignty, they need to try to work things out amongst themselves and with the rest of us. Sovereignty means being independent and being responsible for yourself. She asked how many people in villages would be willing to give up BIA housing and how many people who claim a subsistence lifestyle have accepted food stamps in the past. She thought this fact lost them credibility. She said you don't have to be non-white to be forced into a lifestyle you don't want to live. She advised that before you divide people, you should restrict the commercial uses and the non- resident fishing and hunting, including military. PAUL MAYO, Ahtna shareholder, opposed SJR 19. He said ANILCA does not need to be amended. Katie John and the Ahtna people have had to fight since the Russians for the ability to feed their children. He knows many people who rely on subsistence. Number 247 LOUISE MCMANUS, Interior Airboat Association, said she had lived in Fairbanks for 41 years. They view the subsistence provisions of ANILCA, in general, as illegitimate and unconstitutional. It seems this is a case of federal regulatory agencies abusing the intent of Congress and violating the Tenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and violating the Statehood Compact. This is a straight forward state's rights issue, one of many areas in which an unconstitutionally bloated federal government is trampling the local self government, especially in Alaska. She pointed out that the whole subsistence controversy between Alaskans arises only because of temporary shortages of some species of fish and game in some areas. These shortages are artificially maintained by outsiders who will not let us manage our own game appropriately. Alaskans need to work their problems out amongst themselves and move into the future as one people, she concluded. Number 271 SENATOR LINCOLN asked how she proposed that they work together towards a consensus on this issue. MS. MCMANUS responded that it would be a tough row to hoe and it would take a lot more education. She did not think they would have to lose the native culture to take advantage of the white man's ways. AMANDA ALTON opposed SJR 19. She has never lived in a rural area, but she has lived in Alaska for 19 years and is concerned about issues concerning the state and its people. While equal rights of all Alaskans to the state's fish and game may seem ideal, our constitution disregards the fact that for many native people subsistence is not only economic need, but a vital aspect of the native culture and way of life. SENATOR LEMAN asked if she had read the resolution and if she read the denial of all those rights into the resolution. She responded that ANILCA did protect the subsistence rights of natives. KARL EKLUND said he is not a hunter nor is he from the home of hunters. His class has done fairly extensive research on the subsistence issue and he respected the idea of trying to regain management of our lands, but he also thought that would be putting rural preference in jeopardy. He thought it was easy for people in urban areas to believe that natives do not truly rely on subsistence. We should not be deceived; there is a need to protect the resources and to have the assurance that they will be accessible to the native people and their subsistence lifestyle. Everyone wants the state to be united in thought and action, but we have to give room to differences in governments and lifestyles. There is no need to pressure these people into our way of life by making everyone the same which is often called equality. Number 422 JOE STRUNKA, Fairbanks resident, supported SJR 19 and equality. He asked them to support the Alaska Constitution as it is presently written. He said he has lived off the land and knows how hard that is. He is now retired and living off of a fixed income and he wished he had 44 million acres tax free as the regional corporations have to do their subsistence hunting on. He thought that was being overlooked. He thought there would be a way to continue the native life style by accessing those 44 million acres which are posted as private lands. DON GARRET supported SJR 19. In southern Minnesota many of his grandmother's people were killed when Chief Black Eagle declared war on the whites when they tried to run over their reservation. They were then moved to reservations in North Dakota, South Dakota, and Montana. MR. GARRET said that the Shoshoni Indians realized they had to adapt to white man's ways if they wanted to survive and related some personal stories that he knew supporting this. He urged rural Alaskans to get beyond subsistence and go into the future with moose ranching, farming, village industries, tourism, or with anything that can possibly be done to find a better life style. It can be done without destroying the culture of the people. People need to move beyond subsistence and into the 21st century. It is probably the most divisive unAmerican act that came out of the American Congress. Under Article 1, Section 10 of the U.S. Constitution the State of Alaska is clearly and unmistakably prohibited from participating in the subsistence provision of ANILCA. He thought they needed to give consideration to the grants for welfare, food stamps, and the state and federal money that goes to rural Alaskans. He reminded them, under the Equal Footing amendment, no other state has ever been treated the way Alaska's been treated. Fifteen years of violation of law should come to an end. ANILCA needs to be changed; equal rights need to be given to all people. DAVE LAZEY said he was asked to speak by the chief of Stevens Village in opposition to SJR 19. His position is that human rights are more important than state's rights and this bill does affect subsistence for which there needs to be federal protection. TAPE 95-33, SIDE B Number 570 MR. LAZEY said that the rights of indigenous people to continue to make a living on their traditional lands is one of those human rights. That's what subsistence is all about. He asked if people are really trying to reduce federal control in Alaska, why are they opposing village control, because that seems to be one way federal control could be diminished. MARJORIE MAYO, Fairbanks, said she had been living there for the past 35 years. She said people accept food stamps not only in the villages, but in the cities. It happens all over. Some people do need that kind of help and they do receive it. Food stamps are not entirely free, because they have to be bought. She said the people in the villages are worried about food and they have every reason to worry. DONALD STERN said he voted against statehood, because the federal government would pass laws that would separate urban/rural and native/white, because dividing Alaska's people is the only way it can conquer and control Alaska. Now the federal government does control over 60% of Alaska. This one issue does the whole thing. Our state constitution guarantees equal rights and equal opportunity. He favors subsistence, but he is against losing his subsistence rights guaranteed under the state's constitution just because he lives in a rural setting. The rural preference in Alaska is unconstitutional; it's against the statehood act that he voted for. He would like to change ANILCA and not the statehood act, so he supported SJR 19. Number 471 MARY NORDALE, Birch, Horton, Bittner, and Cherot, represented the Alaska Miners Association. They support SJR 19, not because they view it as a subsistence issue, but because it is very important for a definition of public lands to be incorporated into federal law which will constrain the Department of Interior and other federal agencies from assuming land management authority over lands that don't belong to the federal government. This is not just an ANILCA problem, it's a problem that is evidenced by the actions of the Department of the Interior with respect, for one example, by controlling use of rights of way across public lands. The Alaska Miners Association is concerned that the Department of Interior would assume control over private lands, as well, including native corporation lands. MS. NORDALE stated she is disheartened by the acrimony on this issue which she thought disguised the real issue of whether or not the federal government will control all lands in Alaska. SENATOR LINCOLN said she had difficulty seeing that this was not a subsistence issue when the sponsor's statement talks about the major ANILCA conflicts being the basis for the resolution. MS. NORDALE responded that there was more to ANILCA than the subsistence provision. She didn't think we should exercise dominion over these lands in pursuit of one single objective. She said subsistence can be solved, but it has to be dealt with by itself, instead of all the other peripheral issues, too. SENATOR LINCOLN said this is how they are trying to solve the issue of subsistence. Perhaps the next step is how do we define subsistence. MS. NORDALE urged them to consider seriously that the federal government appears to want to assume land management control over state and other lands through this type of issue. There are other issues that are being used, she added. WARREN MATUMEAK said we are all Alaskans and Alaska is so big that it has different groups of people. He is an elder from Barrow and subsistence for him is a way of life which includes native food which they cannot go without. He gave an example of using whale blubber to cook frozen food. If you don't eat this, then you are a completely different Alaskan than he is. He concluded saying that we all share equal amounts of Alaska Permanent Fund dividend checks which originated from their subsistence hunting lands. ROXANNE FRANK, Fairbanks resident, opposed SJR 19. The reason is because in 1971 a road was built into the village of Minto and when moose hunting season opened in September, 500 cars arrived. They had to deal with people coming in at all hours of the night, waking up to gun shots that were like World War II. During that year the moose population declined drastically and food was taken away from them for that winter. There weren't enough moose for the village of Minto. She explained that the other food they have to get from Anchorage or Fairbanks is very expensive. She concluded saying that rural preference is important to rural areas. HAROLD GILLAM said he has spent 65 years in Fairbanks and thought that qualified him as an elder. He was a member of the citizens advisory to the state/federal land use commission and he has read almost all of the management plans the federal government has put out for management on federal lands and he emphasized that they are management plans for disaster. There is no allowance to exercise any management alternatives on federal lands and you cannot satisfy the needs of a growing population under federal management. He supported SJR 19, but said it was completely unnecessary if a competent judge reviewed ANILCA. ANILCA very clearly defines public lands in three places and goes on to say that it doesn't amend the State Constitution. All the testimony today, he said, has been interesting, but not to the point of the resolution. He thought subsistence was a device hatched in Washington, D.C. to divide the Alaskan people and it is succeeding. He did not think you could give special privilege to one segment of the population without causing a lot of problems. If we utilize proper management, we wouldn't have a subsistence issue - there wouldn't be a game shortage. MR. GILLAM said we need to dispel the notion that it is easy for game to live in Alaska. Number 242 SENATOR LINCOLN pointed out phrases in the resolution like, "authority over fish and wildlife," "fisheries management," "subsistence priority on federal public lands," and "state fish and wildlife management on state private lands and water in Alaska" that make this resolution sound like it does deal with subsistence. MR. GILLAM replied that the federal government just doesn't have a good record of game or fish management. SENATOR HALFORD commented, regarding limited entry, that our Constitution says, "subject to the preference among beneficial uses." He thought we had an unconstitutional classification of users, and subsistence preference for uses could have been accomplished under our constitution without a problem, if the tribal government had done it that way, instead of an unconstitutional classification of people. Number 174 PAT FOX said she was a member of a tribe in the lower 48 states and she strongly opposed SJR 19. She said that federal management of fish and game includes giving tribes the right to manage their own fish and wildlife which is something the state didn't give them. SHIRLEY SAGER said she was asked to read testimony by Mary Bishop in support of SJR 19. Ms. Bishop is a 34-year resident of the interior of Alaska. She didn't think the resolution asked for any major amendments to ANILCA being simply a technical amendment asking Congress to clarify what it passed in the first place. Public lands are defined in ANILCA; they are not defined as having jurisdiction over state lands and waters. The legislative record of ANILCA makes it clear that the federal government under ANILCA can set seasons and bag limits in a very limited fashion. It is not a right on private or state lands and waters. Some judges have filled in some gaps saying that the federal government can take over management of fish and game in these areas. MS. SAGER pointed out that the governor also opposes federal management of fish and game. Number 86 ROBERT DROZDA said he has listened to people from a majority race talk about equality. These people have access to more means and have a different definition of quality of life. When he has traveled in rural Alaska and asked people what he could bring as gifts to them, they have always asked for food, like fresh fruit and vegetables. Their options for food in the villages are so minimal that he needs to bring all the food that he chooses to eat, if they do not feed him. However, he has had lots of meals in the villages. MR. DROZDA said he opposed SJR 19 and thought a better way to go was to amend our constitution. TAPE 34-5, SIDE A Number 001 MICHAEL DUBOWSKI said we do not need federal oversight and that ANILCA pits one culture against another. If it's not changed, we will be having the same types of meetings like this trying to figure a way out. Number 53 JACK FERGUSON, Fairbanks, said we need federal oversight to serve as a check and balance for the excesses that go on in one state or another. If it were not for federal oversight, black people would not be able to vote in the south, indians wouldn't be able to inherit in the southeast, and eventually white people here would have everything, and the indians would starve. He thought comparing rural and urban hunters was a farce, because urban hunters have many more options for income than rural hunters. They can make more money in a month than most rural people can make in a year. AL JONES, Fairbanks resident, supported SJR 19. He thought rights to game should be based on need and not on zip code. ANILCA is flawed and designation of priority for rural resident is unconstitutional and the State Supreme Court says so. VERNON MILLER requested a letter from each of them explaining how the 14th Amendment can allow Puerto Rico to vote not once, but twice, on the United Nations Resolution that orders it done in a timely manner by the United States Government, when the population of Alaska was more on a equal footing (half Native and half Non- Native). At this late date the population is 7 to 1 Non-Native to Native. It's almost a laughing matter. He said there is no tradition under any law that allows taking of a person's land base. SENATOR LEMAN thanked everyone for their participation and adjourned the meeting at 4:50 p.m.