SENATE RESOURCES COMMITTEE April 10, 1995 3:39 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT Senator Loren Leman, Chairman Senator Drue Pearce, Vice Chairman Senator Rick Halford Senator Robin Taylor Senator Georgianna Lincoln Senator Lyman Hoffman COMMITTEE MEMBERS ABSENT Senator Steve Frank 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 SJR 19 - See Resources Committee minutes dated 3/29/95 and 4/8/95. WITNESS REGISTER Senator Mike Miller State Capitol Juneau, AK 99801-1182 POSITION STATEMENT: Prime sponsor of SJR 19. Carl Rosier Tongass Sport Fishing Association POSITION STATEMENT: Supported SJR 19. Dale Kelly, Executive Director Alaska Trollers Association 130 Seward St, Suite 213 Juneau, AK 99801 POSITION STATEMENT: Supported SJR 19. Dean Paddock, Executive Director Bristol Bay Driftnetters Association P.O. Box 21951 Juneau, AK 99802 POSITION STATEMENT: Supported SJR 19. Jerry McCune, President United Fishermen of Alaska 211 Fourth Street, #112 Juneau, AK 99801 POSITION STATEMENT: Supported SJR 19. Alfred McKinley, Sr. Alaska Native Brotherhood POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed SJR 19. Arnold Martin, President Southeast Native Subsistence Committee POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed SJR 19. Rosita Worl, Member Alaska Federation of Natives 1577 C Street, #100 Anchorage, AK 99503 POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed SJR 19. Rick Bearman Territorial Sportsmen Juneau, AK 99801 POSITION STATEMENT: Supported SJR 19. Bud Hodson Alaska Sportfishing Industry Association P.O. Box 220288 Anchorage, AK 99516 POSITION STATEMENT: Supported SJR 19. John Hendrickson Alaska Waterfowl Association 3195 A Lakeshore Dr., #102 Anchorage, AK 99517 POSITION STATEMENT: Supported SJR 19. Joanne Grace, Assistant Attorney General Department of Law 1031 W 4th Ave., #200 Anchorage, AK 99501 POSITION STATEMENT: Commented on SJR 19. Richard Burton 4459 Mountainside Dr. Juneau, AK 99801 POSITION STATEMENT: Supported SJR 19. Catherine Gitkov 2245 Meadow Lane Auke Bay, AK POSITION STATEMENT: Supported SJR 19. Peter Tony Nikolai, AK POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed SJR 19. Andy Golia Bristol Bay Native Association P.O. Box 310 Dillingham, AK 99576 POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed SJR 19. Michael Pederson Arctic Circle Native Association P.O. Box 1232 Barrow, AK 99723 POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed SJR 19. Suzy Erlich Alaska Federation of Native Box 565 Kotzebue, AK POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed SJR 19. John Erlich Box 297 Kotzebue, AK 99752 POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed SJR 19. Art Ivanoff, Subsistence Coordinator Maniilaq Association Box 256 Kotzebue, AK 99752 POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed SJR 19. Sandra Tahbone, Chairman Natural Resources Subsistence Committee Kawerak, Inc. Box 948 Nome, AK 99762 POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed SJR 19. Bob Charles, Vice President Association of Village Council Presidents P.O. Box 219 Bethel, AK 99559 POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed SJR 19. Calvin Simeon Association of Village Council Presidents P.O. Box 219 Bethel, AK 99559 POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed SJR 19. Lee Stoner 940 Serrano Dr. Wasilla, AK 99654 POSITION STATEMENT: Supported SJR 19. Greg Roczicka P.O. Box 513 Bethel, AK 99559 POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed SJR 19. Keith Jonathan P.O. Box 126 Tok, AK 99780 POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed SJR 19. Deborah Lyons P.O. Box 296 Petersburg, AK 99833 POSITION STATEMENT: Commented on SJR 19. Gordon Jensen P.O. Box 264 Petersburg, AK 99833 POSITION STATEMENT: Supported SJR 19. Fred John, Jr. P.O. Box 6024 Mentasta Lake, AK 99780 POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed SJR 19. Gloria Stickwan Copper River Native Association Drawer H Copper Center, AK 99573 POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed SJR 19. Robert Hinman P.O. Box 34195 Juneau, AK 99803 POSITION STATEMENT: Supported SJR 19. Carl Rosier c/o John Sandor Juneau, AK 99801 POSITION STATEMENT: Supported SJR 19. ACTION NARRATIVE TAPE 95-41, SIDE A Number 001 SJR 19 ASK FEDS TO AMEND ANILCA  CHAIRMAN LEMAN called the Senate Resources Committee meeting to order at 3:39 p.m. and announced SJR 19 to be up for consideration. SENATOR MILLER, prime sponsor of SJR 19, stated that the resolution asks congress to clarify that ANILCA did not mean there would be take over of Alaska's management of fish and game and, secondly, it defines public lands so there can be no misinterpretation by the courts. SENATOR MILLER noted a letter of support from former Governor Hickel in which he stated this is a state's rights issue whether one agrees with rural preference or not. SENATOR LEMAN noted that when Alaska became a state one of the big issues was the management of our fish and game. He did not want to criticize federal management, but Alaska has fared much better under state management and he thought it would be much better to continue under state management. SENATOR LINCOLN said she has consistently maintained that this is a subsistence bill. She responded to Governor Hickel's letter by adding that he said this issue is not solely a subsistence issue; it is a state's rights issue as well. In talking about subsistence she is concerned that the Chairman, in attempting to get testimony from all over Alaska, took testimony from Fairbanks only (unless folks can get in to Fairbanks from outlying areas), from Soldotna only, and now today from Juneau. That leaves the rest of the state - 212 communities that are trying to testify as well. She commented that SJR 19 would drive a deeper wedge between the special interest groups rather than build a consensus on such a critical issue. SENATOR LEMAN responded that the committee had done its best to take the issue to a broad cross section of the state. They have heard this resolution far more than what would normally happen. In Fairbanks many people came in from outlying regions and testified and the same thing happened in Soldotna. CARL ROSIER, Tongass Sport Fishing Association, strongly supported SJR 19. He said it is ironic after 36 years of successful statehood and state management that we are here today developing a strategy to avoid preemption of fish and game management by the federal government. The State, through Title 16, developing an advisory committee system, plus a commitment of time and energy of many residents in the international fisheries arenas, has developed a management program about which all residents should be proud. He noted that the feds had little respect for the state participants, in the early days, on the International North Pacific Fisheries Council (INPFC). He added that the state has been involved in the bi-laterals that preceded extended jurisdiction, we were deeply involved in moving the foreign fisheries off-shore, we have been a strong participant in IPHC and the interstate compacts. The state has had the expertise to look after the residents of this state. This will be seriously jeopardized if we prevent the feds from taking over the resources we have invested so much in over the last 36 years. This is not an action against subsistence, but it is a states' rights issue that is important to all of the residents of this state. Number 242 DALE KELLY, Executive Director, Alaska Trollers Association (ATA), supported SJR 19. She said they recognized the importance of subsistence in Alaska and believes SJR 19 poses no threat to subsistence uses. ATA's main concern is with the loss of state jurisdiction over our fisheries resource. Any use of this resolution to eliminate subsistence is not supported by them. ATA believes clarifying the definition of public lands is only one of a number of ANILCA terms which must be clarified if Alaska, through the Board of Fisheries, is to retain management authority over its fisheries. ATA has never viewed an amendment to the Constitution as a solution to the subsistence dilemma. During a recent legislative briefing, Attorney General Bruce Botelho was asked what Alaska law could be changed to prevent federal management. He answered that we all know there is none and emphasized that in virtually every case presented to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, the Court has favored the subsistence use over the adverse interest of the state. The problem for fishermen is that the Ninth Circuit has done a poor job of interpreting ANILCA provisions such as "rural" and "customary trade." Because of the federal court, residents of all but four Alaskan communities qualify as rural subsistence users and can sell subsistence product for significant financial gain while commercial fishermen might not be able to do the same, if it is closed for allocation purposes. These bad rulings from the Ninth Circuit Court constrain the Board of Fisheries from making management decisions appropriate for Alaska because of the threat of added federal interference. MS. KELLY also noted that it's particularly ironic to endorse a resolution in support of state jurisdiction of our fish and game resources when the legislature appears hell bent to make crippling budgetary cuts to the two agencies necessary to defend our interests. The Attorney General's office is slated to take a significant hit just when we need them most for Pacific Salmon Treaty and Endangered Species Act issues. ADF&G is contending with some of its biggest issues since statehood, but the Senate budget proposal mirrors a 1979 spending level when the dollar was a bit stronger. Core research and management programs are at risk which will compromise the health of the resource in our fisheries. Elimination of the Subsistence Division will further polarize groups that must work together to resolve subsistence once and for all. Finally, she said, SJR 19 provides an opportunity for those dependent upon Alaska's fisheries resource to engage in a positive dialogue regarding technical amendments to ANILCA to ensure that Alaskans clarify subsistence definitions, not some judge in a distant court room. Number 296 DEAN PADDOCK, Executive Director, Bristol Bay Driftnetter Association, said if there was ever a motherhood and apple pie issue before this committee, that this should be it. SJR 19 is clear and unambiguous, even if the issue it seeks to clarify may not be. The original intent of the Statehood Act needs to be cleared up without delay. He was a member of the state management team at statehood and after and said we face staggering challenges. We have successfully risen to those challenges with rare exception in the matter of resource management. He remembers the arrogant and largely uncaring attitude of many of the federal managers. He is saddened to see there is not total and complete unanimity within the state today. If the issue of state sovereignty is not cleared up shortly and we go down the trail of federal management, or mismanagement, we will all deeply regret the fact we did not defend state jurisdiction. Number 345 JERRY MCCUNE, President, United Fishermen of Alaska, supported SJR 19 as a statement of state's rights and its ability to manage fish and game for all the users in the state. It does not challenge the concept of state and federal subsistence preference. It doesn't solve all the issues, but does address quite a few of them. One of them is that it states that ANILCA should not preempt state management of fish and game in Alaska and another issue is the state's right to manage all resources on state lands and navigable waters. It makes a statement important to many states that the federal government should not be able to claim title to resources through federal reserve water rights or navigable water rights. Along with SJR 19 we need to fund ADF&G in a manner that can be committed to all users to provide for all users in the state. We need to reauthorize the 1992 state subsistence statute and keep the definitions that are in that statute, like "customary, traditional, and reasonable opportunity." The all-Alaska concept, which is unfair to villages dependent on subsistence, needs work as well as the weak stock issue which ties into the Endangered Species Act. MR. MCCUNE said they would like to see ANILCA amended with the definitions of "rural, customary, and trade, customary and traditional, and reasonable opportunity vs. guarantee." The weak stock issue also needs to be addressed. The last thing would be a constitutional amendment, if we can get these other amendments to ANILCA. Number 374 SENATOR HOFFMAN asked how he would propose that Katie John get access to her subsistence fish. MR. MCCUNE replied that the lands she wants to use are claimed as traditional lands at the head of the Copper River which is where the stocks separate. ADF&G has offered other sites for her take her fish, but she wants to use the traditional site. The problem is they are scared she will take too many fish from one particular tributary. SENATOR HOFFMAN pointed out that he also said he liked the language in state statute on "customary and traditional use." MR. MCCUNE clarified that referenced villages as opposed to individuals. He added that the last resort on subsistence should be the true users as in the villages of the rural areas. SENATOR LEMAN commented that he thought Mr. McCune meant that sometimes managers would have to make some decisions, to protect subsistence as well as other uses, where those traditional uses may be in conflict with good management. Number 400 ALFRED MCKINLEY, SR., Alaska Native Brotherhood, said when the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act of 1971 became law, the conference committee of the U.S. Senate and House expected the Secretary of Interior and the State of Alaska to use their existing authorities to take action necessary to predict the separate needs of the Alaska natives. The failure of the federal and state government to heed congressional admonition caused natives to seek a solution through federal legislation, known now as ANILCA. He opposed SJR 19, because it would nullify recent native subsistence victories in U.S. District Court. At least 60% of Native subsistence takes place in navigable waters in Alaska. ARNOLD MARTIN, President, Southeast Native Subsistence Commission, said that Native harvest of subsistence accounts for less than 4% of the wild renewable resources on an annual basis. Forty-eight percent of rural residents are native and 52% are non-native. Sixteen percent of urban residents are native, 84% are non-native. These statistics show it is hardly significant enough to harm our wild renewable resources. He thought the state was preoccupied in destroying and killing native cultures. SJR 19 will not help return the fish and game management to the state. He opposed the resolution. ROSITA WORL, Member of the Board of Directors, Alaska Federation of Natives, urged the committee not to adopt SJR 19, because it fails to deal with the basic subsistence issue which is not management authority or state's rights, or equal access to common use resources, but rather the continued existence or rural Alaskan villages in the face of overwhelming urban competition for fish and game. SJR 19 asks congress to eviscerate Title 8 of ANILCA by reducing federal regulatory authority and geographical jurisdiction to almost nothing, she said. Senator Stevens warned the legislature that the subsistence issue will not be resolved by congress. Any long term solution will require a consensus among Alaskans which is not what this resolution tries to create. Number 511 SENATOR TAYLOR said he thought she wanted to retain state management. MS. WORL agreed that was what they would all ultimately like. SENATOR TAYLOR asked if she would disagree with Mr. McKinley and others who very openly support petitions to the Secretary of the Interior to take over management of fish and game on behalf of the federal government and lawsuits where they are asking the federal courts to take over jurisdiction of all fish and game management in Alaska. MS. WORL responded she thought the native community wanted good sound management that protects subsistence. As they see it, there is a lack of the state wanting to implement legislation and not wanting to amend the constitution and is, therefore, not willing to protect subsistence. SENATOR TAYLOR said a month ago they discussed this subject at length with Attorney General Bothelo who indicated very clearly that amending the Constitution of the State of Alaska would not return management of these resources to this state, but an amendment of ANILCA would still be required to return management to the state. He thought the last thing any Alaskan would want would be to put the federal government back in managing our fish, caribou, and everything else. MS. WORL responded that ANILCA does offer the protections when the state is not in compliance. Amending the Constitution could put us into compliance. She thought this is what Senator Stevens was suggesting. SENATOR TAYLOR said Senator Stevens hadn't suggested a constitutional amendment for the last two years. RICK BEARMAN, President, Territorial Sportsmen, said they were an organization since before the statehood movement. They were prominent in the statehood movement primarily to secure management of Alaska's fish and wildlife resources from the federal government. That issue was the catalyst of the statehood movement. Today, decades later, we are fighting the same battle. The Territorial Sportsmen supports SJR 19. He thought it was inconceivable to think it was congress's intent to take management away from those who are best able to do the job and give it to unconcerned and inept bureaucrats in Washington. Number 584 BUD HODSON, Alaska Sportfishing Industry Association, supported SJR 19. As a past chairman of the Board of Fisheries, he said that fisheries management decisions are complex matters. The input of all users must be considered to make decisions that are fair. If the authority granted to the federal government under ANILCA is extended to include state land and waters, only the considerations of one user group will be considered. TAPE 95-41, SIDE B Number 598 MR. HODSON concluded saying that he thought it was imperative that the state maintain authority over fish and game management. JOHN HENDRICKSON, Alaska Waterfowl Association, said that ANILCA was not intended to apply federal management to state lands. He supported SJR 19. It's absurd to think that public lands is intended to mean state lands. He thought that the subsistence issue has become a diversion, because no one is really suffering one way or another. All we are doing is debating it. MS. GRACE'S TESTIMONY IS TRANSCRIBED VERBATIM JOANNE GRACE, Assistant Attorney General, Department of Law, said the Department presently is representing the state in litigation raising the issues addressed in SJR 19. The state's position in this litigation generally corresponds to the resolution's request for amendment. Nevertheless, the administration's position is that although amendment to ANILCA might be part of a final solution to the subsistence dilemma in Alaska, we need consensus among Alaskans about how to resolve the many problems rather than a solution imposed by lawmakers in Washington, D.C. The administration's goals are to regain state management of fish and wildlife for all lands in Alaska and to preserve the rural priority. The amendments that SJR 19 suggests differ in one respect from the issues in litigation. SJR 19 addresses two issues which we refer to as the "Where I" issue and the "Where II" issue. The "Where I" issue is the question of whether the subsistence priority and the FSB's management authority extend to navigable waters in Alaska. The plaintiffs in the Katie John litigation argue, and Judge Holland held, that they do, for this reason. The subsistence priority applies to "public lands." Generally "public lands" are understood to mean federal lands, but Congress can define this term differently in different contexts. In ANILCA, Congress defined "public lands" and "lands, waters, and interests therein, title to which is in the United States." I believe that Congress thought it was defining public lands and federally-owned lands. The Katie John plaintiffs argued, however, that if the United States has any property interest in lands or waters, that converts them to "public lands" under this definition, regardless of who owns them. Thus, they argue, if the United States has a water right in a river, the river is "public lands" subject to federal management. The United States does not claim to have title to these state and private lands, as SJR 19 seems to imply. Lines 21-22 on page two and 9-10 on page three refer to a claim of federal title to land and resources based on federal reserved water rights or the navigational servitude. The plaintiffs' claim is not that the United States owns the land and resources based on these doctrines, but that it has authority to regulate fish and wildlife on lands and waters subject to federal water rights, navigational servitude, or any other federal property interest. In other words, the existence of any federal interest mandates federal regulation. The status of the litigation is as follows. The "Where I" issue, that I've described, was decided by the U.S. District Court last March. Judge Holland held that all navigable waters in Alaska are public lands subject to ANILCA because the United States has title to the navigational servitude. The state and the United States appealed this to the Ninth Circuit. On appeal both the state and the United States argue that navigational servitude does not convert waters into public lands, but the United States argues that some waters are public lands by virtue of the United States' water rights. The court heard oral argument in February and has the case under advisement. The "Where II" issue, that is the issue of whether the Departments of Agriculture and Interior have authority to regulate fish and wildlife on state and private lands to effect the subsistence priority on public lands, is currently before the district court in four different cases. The court has indicated that it will not address his issue while the U.S. considers a petition by the Northwest Arctic Regional Corporation to promulgate regulations to extend the FSB's authority off public lands. Thank you for the opportunity to testify. SENATOR TAYLOR asked if the administration has changed its position and no longer opposes the Katie John case. MS. GRACE replied that wasn't the case, at all. The state is maintaining its position on these two issues in litigation. Her point is only that the administration sees the amendment to ANILCA as part of a solution, but not exclusively the solution. They believe that the solution includes a constitutional amendment, as you know. SENATOR TAYLOR responded that he knows the administration believes a constitutional amendment is preferred by them as part of a solution, but isn't it true that a complete and total solution of this issue could be resolved by merely amending ANILCA on the federal level. MS. GRACE said she wasn't sure what he meant by a complete solution to the problem. SENATOR TAYLOR commented, "Try repealing it. Does that resolve the subsistence problem?" MS. GRACE replied that the administration's position is to regain state management of fish and wildlife for all lands and to preserve the rural priority. SENATOR TAYLOR asked her if she supported this resolution. MS. GRACE replied that the Department of Law is taking almost exactly the same position in its litigation. In other words, our position is that congress did not intend the subsistence priority to apply to navigable waters and did not intend to give the Departments of Agriculture and Interior authority to regulate fish and wildlife off of the ground. SENATOR TAYLOR asked if that could be taken as a "yes." MS. GRACE replied, "Yes, with one proviso that the administration sees this as only part of the solution, not as the only solution." SENATOR TAYLOR said she indicated the federal government had argued, and felt there was some authority for, the retention of a federal property right, if any, and no matter how minuscule, federal property right were retained. He asked if that gave the federal government the right to enforce federal law on those private lands. MS. GRACE replied that that was the position the plaintiffs took and that was the position accepted by the Federal District Court. You are correct about the retention of an interest by the United States. There is a federal statute that provides that all lands patented by the United States after 1890 are conveyed subject to additions and easements. A district and canal's easement in the United States, so the United States holds the property interests in virtually all the land in Alaska. SENATOR TAYLOR said, then, that under that theory, all of the land in Alaska is under federal jurisdiction under Title 8, ANILCA, in their interpretation. MS. GRACE replied, "In their interpretation, but I'll argue that's absurd." SENATOR TAYLOR responded that we haven't been very successful in those arguments, have we. MS. GRACE commented that it hadn't worked so far. Number 480 SENATOR LINCOLN asked her to clarify her response to the question of the administration's support of SJR 19. MS. GRACE said the administration supports it as part of a larger package which includes a constitutional amendment. SENATOR LINCOLN asked if the administration supported SJR 19 as it stands alone. MS. GRACE said she couldn't make that unequivicable statement. She said the Department of Law unquestionably takes this position in litigation. The administration has told the Department of Law to continue to take this position in litigation, but the administration sees the resolution of the entire subsistence problem as including not just amendments to ANILCA, but also a constitutional amendment. SENATOR LINCOLN asked if the administration is in agreement with the congressional delegation when they say that the congressional action will be contingent on a firm state consensus and agreement between the legislature, the governor, and affected entities within our state. MS. GRACE said she wasn't sure she had a deep enough understanding of what this administration's position is to feel comfortable answering that question. Number 454 RICHARD BURTON, Juneau resident, said he was Commissioner of the Department of Public Safety until December 5, 1994. His standpoint is from the enforcement perspective. He said the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Division has over 400 officers and a larger budget, and more airplanes in the State of Alaska than the Alaska Division of Fish and Wildlife Protection which has fewer than 100 people. He said there was a difference in the conflicts between the federal regulations and state regulations. Also, federal regulations have no residency requirement, where the state has residency requirements. In Yakutat, for instance, the federal regulation allows one brown bear each per year, with no tag or seal for harvest information and the state regulation says you can take one bear every four years. MR. BURTON commented that a lot of enforcement is not getting done by the federal or the state government which hurts the resource. He supported SJR 19 if it does what people say it will. SENATOR TAYLOR asked if he was in the state before statehood. MR. BURTON answered that he had been here since 1954 and had started working with Fish and Wildlife at about that time. SENATOR TAYLOR asked what the state of our salmon resources was at the end of federal management. MR. BURTON said that was one of the biggest arguments for statehood. Judge Arnold and the Seattle cannery bloc held a tight rope on things. Seattle managed our fisheries through the federal government. SENATOR TAYLOR asked if he was familiar with the Skoog Report. MR. BURTON replied no, but he remembered a picture of rotting caribou that their people took. SENATOR TAYLOR asked what was the motivation behind taking those pictures. MR. BURTON recalled that it was up north and a caribou herd looked like it was suddenly declining and that was the beginning of some management control - back in the 70's. SENATOR TAYLOR asked if that was where the term "subsistence" was coined. MR. BURTON couldn't say. CATHERINE GITKOV, Juneau resident, supported the principles of SJR 19. She did not see it as anti-subsistence, but rather a request for a clear definition of public land and a prohibition of federal preemption of state fish and wildlife management on state and private lands and waters of Alaska. She believed the state is doing a fine job of managing the resources. The very idea of the federal government having total control over these activities is very scary. For instance, they punish Alaskan fishermen by continuously reducing the number of chinook we can take to compensate for the mismanagement down south. Without a clarification of "public lands" she was afraid the federal government would try to take over and we can't afford to see this happen. Number 334 PETER TONY, Nikolai resident, opposed SJR 19. He said Nikolai is a very traditional village and it is one of the last areas of the state that is still remote - accessible only by airplane. The village of Nikolai opposed SJR 19, because they live largely on subsistence. They want to be able to offer their children and grandchildren the opportunity to enjoy their lifestyle and the village can't compete with modern hunters and fishers and their equipment. ANDY GOLIA, Bristol Bay Native Association, opposed SJR 19, because he thought the Bristol Bay region would suffer. Their villages need to hunt and fish in order to survive. Fish and wildlife resources know no boundaries and they need to travel long distances between state and federal land to fulfill their subsistence needs. MICHAEL PEDERSON, Arctic Circle Native Association, said he represented subsistence users in the communities of Anaktuvik Pass, Atqasuk, Kaktovik, Nuiqsut, Point Lay, and Wainwright. They strongly opposed SJR 19. He reminded the committee that on March 30, 1994 in federal district court Judge Holland ruled that the federal government has the legal authority to regulate subsistence hunting and fishing on all such public lands and waters. The federal law is the best protection subsistence users have in this state. They believe the best solution to resolve the subsistence impacting Alaska is an amendment to the Alaska Constitution recognizing a rural subsistence priority. Number 234 SUZY ERLICH, Alaska Nation of Natives, said she represented the Kotzebue area. She objected to the time limitation imposed on villagers who are testifying when people from the urban areas ignored the time line. She also criticized the individual who commented on the pictures of piles of dead caribou giving one the impression that subsistence users were responsible. She severely opposed SJR 19 mostly because the state, itself, has not determined what is meant by subsistence. She said she would like to send the committee samples of subsistence food, and while they enjoy eating, she would like them to remember that food is their life blood. She said she represented 11 villages in the Nana region. JOHN ERLICH opposed SJR 19. He said it is mostly a subsistence issue. He said he would like to resolve the subsistence dilemma within the state, but he thought it would be harder if they passed SJR 19, because it was so contentious. SENATOR LEMAN noted that there was no linkage between HJR 33 and SJR 19 in terms of movement through the Legislature. ART IVANOFF, Subsistence Coordinator, Maniilaq Association, opposed SJR 19. ANILCA provides subsistence protection to rural communities in Alaska who need the protection from urban hunters, based on their need to maintain their cultural and traditional subsistence lifestyle. Alaskan residents must be given the opportunity to vote and decide whether or not to amend the constitution to allow for rural preference. Number 101 SENATOR TAYLOR commented that he assumed the ducks and geese would be arriving soon. MR. IVANOFF agreed. SENATOR TAYLOR asked if they still hunted them in the spring. MR. IVANOFF replied that they do. SENATOR TAYLOR asked if that was in compliance with the federal law (under the Migratory Waterfowl Act) and the federal enforcers that he wants to take over the river systems. SUZY ERLICH replied that they were much more comfortable with federal regulations because they are much more sensitive to their way of living. She said they do continue to hunt. SENATOR TAYLOR said he supported their right to hunt those ducks, but the federal government does not support their right to hunt those ducks. They are violating federal law and it's only because the federal enforcers are playing politics and not arresting and throwing people in jail over it. He said he had a hard time believing it's o.k. as long as the federal enforcer looks the other way. If he started enforcing the laws, he didn't think they would like their law on federal duck control. TAPE 95-42, SIDE A Number 001 SANDRA TAHBONE, Chairman, Natural Resources Subsistence Committee, Kawerak, Inc., referred to the Board of Fisheries handling of the False Pass issue. It is obvious that in the area of fisheries management, one of the key justifications for statehood, the State of Alaska falls short. Fish and animals do not recognize unnatural boundaries. For this reason the court has ruled repeatedly that the federal government can enforce its management on adjacent lands. The rulings from the Eighth and Ninth District Court make SJR 19 frivolous and a waste of the Senate's valuable time. She supported amending the State Constitution. BOB CHARLES, Vice President, Operations, Association of Village Council Presidents, opposed SJR 19. He said the state has not had a good track record in managing the resources, especially in those areas where stocks are declining. He noted that a number of people weren't there because they thought the meeting would happen at a different time. SENATOR LEMAN responded that the Juneau Legislative Information Office (LIO) had sent out misinformation about the time, but had corrected the information within 30 minutes after it went out. He apologized and said when they make mistakes, they try to correct them as fast as possible. SENATOR LINCOLN asked if other people had left, because of the mixup. MR. CHARLES said that a number of people were not there. SENATOR LINCOLN said they could still send in their written testimony so it would still be on record. Number 115 CALVIN SIMEON opposed SJR 19, because he believed the issue was that ADF&G in western Alaska was severely underfunded. They don't have enough money to manage the commercial fisheries and with proposed cuts in the Subsistence Division, they felt it was necessary to have the federal government involved so they can keep an eye on the stocks of salmon. SENATOR LEMAN asked him if he meant direct federal management or federal oversite of state management. MR. SIMEON said he would like to give the state another chance to be able to live up to their requirements of sustained yield and a subsistence preference. Basically they have failed to do that, but he would like federal oversite. Number 160 LEE STONER, Mat-Su, supported SJR 19. Our fish and game management must be directed by Alaskans, he said. Federal control of fish and game should be restricted only to land and waters specifically delineated as federal land and water. GREG ROCZICKA, Bethel, said that everyone has pretty much lost faith with the way the state system is working as far as it goes to protect subsistence. Subsistence users are practically always at the end of the line. KEITH JONATHON, Community Resource Coordinator, Tok, opposed SJR 19 saying it would only add fuel to the subsistence problem. SENATOR LEMAN announced an at ease from 5:28 p.m. - 5:34 p.m. Number 275 DEBORAH LYONS, Petersburg, said she thought the feds were doing a little bit better at management than the state right now. She thought it was very important for the state to manage for subsistence through the fish and game laws. She thought it was very important for natives to be able to eat their own food in their home land, like she did as an Irishman. She said the federal and state laws are written to try to protect subsistence. The fact is that the state has not done as good a job for most rural and native Alaskans as the federal government. MS. LYONS thought the state had done a lot toward promulgating subsistence regulations through McDowell, but then the feds came in and offered more than that. She asked them to look at the position the people are in who are testifying on this. She can understand their lack of confidence. SENATOR LINCOLN asked her to comment on whether she thought this was a subsistence bill. MS. LYONS said she had listened to a lot of the testimony and the Natives obviously think it is, but implicit in the bill is that the rural subsistence users would have to make a leap of faith. Personally, she thought the first intention of the bill was to make it clear that the state has management authority for subsistence. The second question was how well they would manage it. MS. LYONS said she supported the concept in SJR 19 of the state being the managing entity, but she pointed out that she could hear the criticisms and concerns from rural and subsistence users, as well. SENATOR LINCOLN asked her what she would recommend to resolve this issue. MS. LYONS said the people of Alaska need to resolve what subsistence management should be about. For instance, some people in native communities think that subsistence food should not be sold for cash. Number 410 GORDON JENSEN, Petersburg, supported SJR 19, because it would keep us from falling into federal management. Everything they do is done poorly, he said. Salmon stocks and other stock just get lower and lower and lower. By the time the state took over, we had very little left to work with. He spent 20 years on the Board of Fish and Game and understands some of the things that were done to rehabilitate these stocks. He commented that it was very ironic that we are talking about giving more control to the federal government. FRED JOHN, JR., Mentasta Lake, opposed SJR 19. He believed in preserving the rural priority for the subsistence lifestyle. He said there is a large waste of meat that comes from big game hunters in his village area. "Right now," he said, "with the attitude coming out of the legislature in Juneau, I believe the federal government has more trust than the state has." He explained that Katie John is his mother. SENATOR LEMAN asked Mr. John what attitude he thought was coming out of Juneau. MR. JOHN replied that in the newspapers there was an attitude about Native people from different legislators. It makes him feel bad, because he thinks they can all get along. SENATOR LEMAN asked him what newspaper article he was referring to. MR. JOHN said no one in Juneau knows anything about it, but people in the rural areas do. It seems that the majority party is against anything that is native. SENATOR LEMAN asked him if he would be surprised to know that he was raised in rural Alaska and that he is part Native. MR. JOHN said he didn't know that. GLORIA STICKWAN, Copper River Native Association, opposed SJR 19. They want a rural priority for subsistence users and the state has never protected rural subsistence rights. She supported amending the State Constitution to comply with ANILCA. Number 500 ROBERT HINMAN, Juneau resident, supported SJR 19 saying that the push for statehood was fueled primarily by the urgent need to get the federal government out of the management of our natural resources, mostly fisheries. We enjoyed some good state management and then federal controls were instituted over most phases of state management. We can do something about the preemption of state's rights to manage on state and private lands and waters by clarification and actions asked for in SJR 19. He feared federal takeover of fisheries management in state waters will have catastrophic results on both commercial and sport fishing in the state. CARL ROSIER said that the former Commissioner of the Department of Natural Resources, John Sandor, asked him to read his statement. Mr. Sandor supported SJR 19, because it seeks insurance that the State of Alaska will retain its management responsibilities for fish and wildlife on state and private lands and navigable waters. It is essential that the Congress of the United States reaffirm the intent of the statehood compact and ANILCA that the state retains this management responsibility. The President of the United States and the Congress have expressed their support of returning rights and authorities to the states. He noted that as long as federal agencies continue to centralize more of their decision making authorities in Washington, D.C. and in regional headquarters in the lower 48 states, Alaska's people and resources will be at greater risk. SENATOR LINCOLN asked if they could hold the bill over another day to receive more testimony from people who didn't get a chance to speak and to review the proposed committee substitute. SENATOR HOFFMAN agreed with that request. Number 575 SENATOR HALFORD moved to adopt the committee substitute to SJR 19. SENATOR LINCOLN objected because she didn't have time to review the committee substitute. She asked if it was his intention to move the bill today. SENATOR LEMAN said he would leave it up to the committee. He personally had spent 13 hours in hearings plus many other hours in preparing for it and he felt prepared to move it from committee. SENATOR HOFFMAN said they just received the committee substitute and should be allowed at least a day to look at it before they vote on it. SENATOR HALFORD explained the only difference was the last resolve that the Alaska State Legislature respectfully requests the Alaska Delegation of Congress to oppose any other amendments to ANILCA until the Congress takes action to confirm state management and to limit the definition of public lands. TAPE 95-42, SIDE B SENATOR LINCOLN asked what was the intent of any other amendments to ANILCA. SENATOR HALFORD replied that since ANILCA has been amended numerous times in the past, they continuously hear that it can't be amended. If it can't be amended in the area of critical state management, then it probably shouldn't be amended in other areas either. SENATOR LINCOLN maintained her objection. SENATOR LEMAN called for the roll. Senators Leman, Pearce, and Halford voted yes; Senators Lincoln and Hoffman voted no; and the committee substitute was adopted. Number 579 SENATOR TAYLOR clarified that he strongly supported the right of people north of a certain parallel in this state to take ducks and geese in the spring of the year. It is the federal government that says they cannot do it, not the state. SENATOR HOFFMAN said that since there wasn't overwhelming committee support for the resolution, he thought it should be voted down. SENATOR LINCOLN noted that she listened to all of the testimony in Fairbanks, Soldotna, and Juneau and kept track of the support and opposition and there was truly an overwhelming number of people who testified in opposition to SJR 19. She thought it was very clear that many folks are confused about the intent of this resolution and she didn't think we should ignore their voices. Number 506 SENATOR HALFORD moved and asked unanimous consent to move CSSJR 19 (RES) with individual recommendations. SENATOR LINCOLN objected. Senators Leman Frank, Halford, and Taylor voted yes; Senators Lincoln and Hoffman voted no; Senator Pearce voted no, because she didn't think they should move a committee substitute the committee had just received; and the motion passed. SENATOR LEMAN adjourned the meeting at 6:30 p.m.