U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

33–836 PDF WASHINGTON : 2019

S. HRG. 115–415 

KEEP WHAT YOU CATCH: PROMOTING 

TRADITIONAL SUBSISTENCE ACTIVITIES IN 

NATIVE COMMUNITIES 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON INDIAN AFFAIRS 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

JUNE 20, 2018 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Indian Affairs 

( 

(II) 

COMMITTEE ON INDIAN AFFAIRS 

JOHN HOEVEN, North Dakota, Chairman 

TOM UDALL, New Mexico, Vice Chairman 

JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming 

JOHN MCCAIN, Arizona 

LISA MURKOWSKI, Alaska 

JAMES LANKFORD, Oklahoma 

STEVE DAINES, Montana 

MIKE CRAPO, Idaho 

JERRY MORAN, Kansas 

MARIA CANTWELL, Washington 

JON TESTER, Montana, 

BRIAN SCHATZ, Hawaii 

HEIDI HEITKAMP, North Dakota 

CATHERINE CORTEZ MASTO, Nevada 

TINA SMITH, Minnesota 

T. MICHAEL ANDREWS, Majority Staff Director and Chief Counsel 

JENNIFER ROMERO, Minority Staff Director and Chief Counsel 

(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

Hearing held on June 20, 2018 ............................................................................... 1 

Statement of Senator Barrasso ............................................................................... 5 

Statement of Senator Hoeven ................................................................................. 1 

Statement of Senator Murkowski ........................................................................... 4 

Statement of Senator Smith ................................................................................... 42 

Statement of Senator Udall .................................................................................... 2 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 3 

WITNESSES

Brown, Hon. Roy B., Chairman, Northern Arapaho Tribe ................................... 11 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 13 

Hardin, Jennifer, Ph.D., Subsistence Policy Coordinator, Office of Subsistence 

Management, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service .................................................... 6 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 8 

Peltola, Mary Sattler, Executive Director, Kuskokwim River Inter-Tribal Fish 

Commission ........................................................................................................... 15 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 16 

Romero-Briones, A-Dae, J.D., LL.M, Director of Programs, Native Agriculture 

and Food Systems, First Nations Development Institute ................................. 25 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 26 

APPENDIX

Bartley, Kevin, Rural Resident of Alaska, prepared statement .......................... 47 

Linnell, Karen, Executive Director, Ahtna Intertribal Resource Commission, 

prepared statement .............................................................................................. 51 

Response to written questions submitted by Hon. Catherine Cortez Masto 

to: 

Jennifer Hardin, Ph.D. ..................................................................................... 63 

A-Dae Romero-Briones ..................................................................................... 60 

Mary Sattler Peltola ......................................................................................... 52 

Written questions submitted by Hon. Catherine Cortez Masto to Hon. Roy 

B. Brown ............................................................................................................... 66 

(1) 

KEEP WHAT YOU CATCH: PROMOTING 

TRADITIONAL SUBSISTENCE ACTIVITIES IN 

NATIVE COMMUNITIES 

WEDNESDAY, JUNE 20, 2018 

U.S. SENATE, 

COMMITTEE ON INDIAN AFFAIRS, 

Washington, DC. 

The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:30 p.m. in room 

628, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. John Hoeven, 

Chairman of the Committee, presiding. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN HOEVEN, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM NORTH DAKOTA 

The CHAIRMAN. I call the meeting to order. 

Good afternoon. I would like to thank our witnesses for being 

here. 

Today, we will examine subsistence hunting and fishing in tribal 

communities and evaluate how Congress, the Administration, 

tribes, and tribal organizations can work together to alleviate regulatory limitations on this traditional way of life. 

Subsistence involves the harvest of local resources for local consumption. Many Indian tribes across the Country have practiced 

and maintained a subsistence lifestyle for thousands of years. This 

way of life has provided fundamental benefits, from supplying critical food sources to preserving culture. Subsistence is prevalent 

among Indian communities across the Country. 

In the Pacific Northwest, American Indians and Alaska Natives 

harvest, process, distribute and consume millions of pounds of wild 

animals, fish and plants. These practices are critical for the cultural longevity and economic vitality of these tribal communities. 

In the Midwest, tribes engage in traditional hunting and fishing, 

something I enjoy very much myself. 

All over the Nation, Native communities show tremendous care 

for the land and environment. However, government policy can 

often limit their ability to live out this subsistence lifestyle. 

As the original stewards, tribes have demonstrated conservation 

practices for their natural resources. It is important that the Federal Government enact subsistence policies that promote the interests of their communities. 

Both overregulation and lack of oversight can affect the availability of, and access to, tribal resources. Federal involvement in 

2 

natural resource management, through laws such as the Endangered Species Act, must be balanced. 

The government should not dictate what Native communities can 

or cannot do on their own lands or disrupt the exercise of their 

hunting and fishing treaty rights. It has been several Congresses 

since this Committee has held a hearing examining this important 

topic. 

I want to thank our witnesses for being with us this afternoon. 

Subsistence policies that fully accommodate tribal interests are 

vital to the health and cultural survival of tribal communities. I 

look forward to hearing the recommendations of our witnesses on 

how this Committee and this Congress can help support subsistence and traditional ways of life in Indian Country. 

With that, I will now turn to Vice Chairman Udall for his opening comments. 

STATEMENT OF HON. TOM UDALL, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM NEW MEXICO 

Senator UDALL. Thank you, Chairman Hoeven, for calling today’s 

hearing on traditional subsistence practices. 

Subsistence not only means nourishing communities with traditional foods but also feeding generations with traditional knowledge that sustains, grows and keeps Native communities together. 

To begin, I would like to give a special welcome to today’s witness from the First Nations Development Institute, A-Dae RomeroBriones. A-Dae is originally from beautiful Cochiti Pueblo in my 

home State of New Mexico. Thank you very much for being here. 

Today’s hearing is a great opportunity to highlight the importance of traditional, ecological knowledge, or TEK, as a way to promote and maintain traditional subsistence practices in Native communities. TEK is used by tribes, Federal agencies and others stakeholders to overcome environmental barriers to subsistence on a collaborative basis. TEK is a body of knowledge, beliefs and practices 

passed down from generation to generation in indigenous communities around the globe. 

In the U.S., Native communities use TEK-based techniques to 

achieve balance and sustainability in cultivating traditional foods 

while also providing for spiritual and cultural well being. For example, Tsuki Pueblo in New Mexico is creating tribal seed banks 

to ensure that heirloom seeds are available for both sustenance and 

ceremonies. 

Despite the enormously important role TEK and subsistence 

plays in Indian Country, climate change poses a grave threat to the 

ability of Native communities to access traditional foods. That loss 

goes beyond sustenance and eliminates a community’s way of life 

like hunting, fishing, trapping, farming and forestry. Drought, in 

particular, has threatened traditional farming practices in my 

home State which are renowned as a benchmark for sustainable 

agriculture in an arid environment. 

Decreased snow pack increases the occurrence of devastating 

wildfires causing ripple effects far and wide, including the loss of 

plans and wildlife important to subsistence uses. Coastal tribal 

communities from the Wampanoag in Massachusetts to the 

3 

Quileute in Washington are experiencing the damaging effects of 

climate change on their water and subsistence rights. 

Ancient Hawaiian fish ponds are another ecologically and culturally significant subsistence resource that is vulnerable to climate change impacts including ocean acidification and sea level 

rise. 

All of these examples are serious threats to the ability of Native 

communities to gather, hunt and cultivate traditional foods. That 

is why we in Congress should do all we can to promote and work 

with tribes to develop TEK-based solutions to climate change and 

other threats to traditional subsistence practices. 

This Congress, I have worked with others on this Committee to 

support the use of regional and community-specific TEK solutions. 

S. 2804, CROPS for Indian Country, promotes TEK-based solutions 

for food programs and forestry management by authorizing tribes 

to use 638 contracting to manage food programs and forestry activities at the USDA. It also directs the Government Accountability Office to investigate marketplace protections for traditional tribal 

foods. 

The legislative provisions in the CROPS Act put important tools 

for environmental management back into the hands of tribes and 

advance TEK-based solutions for the effects of climate change on 

customary and traditional subsistence practices. We can take important legislative steps, like the CROPS Act, to support tribal food 

sovereignty but we must also use today’s hearing to discuss how we 

can support greater use of TEK to address the effects of climate 

change. 

I look forward to this panel’s testimony. 

Mr. Chairman, I would also like to put a statement into the 

record dealing with the issue of family separation. I am just going 

to put it in the record. 

This has caused great concern within my Native communities in 

New Mexico. We have heard from the National Congress of American Indians which feels this goes back to a very sad chapter in 

their lives. 

I just want to put that statement into the record, with your permission. 

The CHAIRMAN. Without objection. 

[The prepared statement of Senator Udall follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. TOM UDALL, U.S. SENATOR FROM NEW MEXICO

Subsistence is a way of life for tribal communities that depends on passing traditional ecological knowledge down between generations. Today, we are going to talk 

about modern threats to subsistence, such as climate change. But, it was not that 

long ago that the major threat to subsistence—to all traditional practices—was the 

federal Boarding School policy. 

Members of this Committee are well aware that the Boarding School Era is one 

of this country’s most tragic periods—when Presidents and Congress allowed Native 

children to bear the brunt of federal policies designed to solve the ‘‘Indian problem’’. 

And, even though we are decades removed from that misguided era, the impacts 

of cultural and community disruption still reverberate today. We hear it repeatedly 

in the testimony of Tribal leaders and Native youth who come to speak with the 

Committee. 

Our response, as Members of Congress, has always been to pledge: ‘‘never again’’. 

Well, we are now called to uphold that pledge. The Trump Administration actions 

are an attempt to write another chapter of the Boarding School era, this time for 

immigrant families. It is once again putting forward a federal policy that tears chilVerDate Mar 15 2010 11:12 Dec 27, 2018 Jkt 033836 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 S:\DOCS\33836.TXT JACK
4 

dren from the arms of their mother and fathers—this time to solve the ‘‘border problem.’’ 

We cannot—in good conscience and as Members of this Committee—let this practice disrupt another generation. While the President just announced he would sign 

an Executive Order ending his inhumane policy of separating families at the border, 

I remind my colleagues here today that we cannot be too vigilant. 

And, we must not consider this matter settled until the details of this Order are 

known and every last child is returned to their families. 

Senator UDALL. Thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. I will turn to Senator Barrasso in a minute for 

purposes of an introduction but are there other opening statements 

before we proceed to the witnesses? Senator Murkowski. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. Mr. Chairman, I, too, would like to be able 

to introduce the Alaska witnesses. Whatever is the Chairman’s 

preference, now or later? 

The CHAIRMAN. Are there other opening statements? 

[No audible response.] 

The CHAIRMAN. We will proceed to the witnesses. I will defer on 

Dr. Hardin and Chairman Brown. We will start, Senator Murkowski, with you. 

STATEMENT OF HON. LISA MURKOWSKI, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM ALASKA 

Senator MURKOWSKI. Thank you, Chairman. I appreciate the 

Committee scheduling this hearing today to examine the importance of traditional and customary subsistence activities in our Native communities. 

I want to recognize Dr. Hardin, the Subsistence Policy Coordinator at the Office of Subsistence Management for Fish and Wildlife in Anchorage. I am pleased that you are here. 

I would also like to thank my friend, Mary Sattler Peltola, for 

being here before the Committee to testify today. Mary’s is the first 

Executive Director of the Kuskokwim River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission. 

This fish commission was established in 2015 and has been doing 

good and important work for us since that time. 

Mary was born and raised in Kwethluk, a pretty small Yupik village located on the Kuskokwim River. She has been a subsistence 

fisherman her entire life, I think, and is raising a young family 

also very engaged in subsistence fishing as her ancestors did for 

thousands of years. 

She is a leader in her community, in her region and in the State. 

I had the privilege of serving with Mary when we were both in the 

Alaska State Legislature. I think it is fair to say that we were favorites, we liked one another and worked very well together. 

Today, you will hear from Mary how vitally, vitally important 

fish and wildlife resources are to the food security of Alaska Natives and how these resources are really the cornerstone of Alaska 

Native cultures and our economic systems in rural Alaska. 

Sometimes the Federal and State governments exclude our tribes 

from the subsistence management of these resources. Many of you 

may know and some may not know Alaska’s fish and wildlife resources are dually-managed with different management systems or 

regimes on State and Federal lands. 

5 

This causes some confusion and frustration for many residents 

around the State. The Federal Subsistence Board was created 

through regulation to manage the Federal side of this dual regime 

and continues to be a point of contention among many, including 

the view the Federal Government has failed to prioritize management decisions for subsistence to ensure we are seeing healthy and 

abundant populations for consumption. 

You will hear from Mary this afternoon about the significance of 

priority for protecting the subsistence way of life through maximum self-determination and how critical that is to our tribes. 

Organizations, like the Kuskokwim River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission, are a great opportunity for Alaska and our tribal communities to coordinate the management of our fish and wildlife resources, to work to get the information moving smoothly, and to integrate the traditional knowledge that is so key and important with 

our State and Federal research. 

I thank you, Mary, for being here, for traveling the long distance, 

for your leadership, and for really helping to show the way when 

it comes to co-management of our resources. Thank you so much. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. Senator Barrasso. 

STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN BARRASSO, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM WYOMING 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate your 

holding this hearing today and the opportunity I have to introduce 

Chairman Roy Brown. 

As Chairman of the Northern Arapaho Tribe in Wyoming, Chairman Brown is uniquely qualified to discuss the ways culture, ecology and wildlife management affect life along the Wind River 

Range. 

Wyoming is home to a wide variety of wildlife, elk, mule deer, 

pronghorn, sage grouse and the Wind River Reservation is no exception. Situated along the east face of the Wind River Range, the 

reservation has vast grasslands, rich riparian areas, and mountainous terrain. 

Managing each of those ecosystems is carefully done, both in the 

tradition and with the knowledge of the Northern Arapaho and 

Eastern Shoshone wildlife managers, but also in cooperation with 

the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the Wyoming Game and 

Fish Department. 

That careful management is complicated by many natural factors, including drought, fire and flood. Management has also been 

made more difficult by the failure to manage other factors as well. 

I know today Chairman Brown plans to share with us the ecological damage that wild and feral horses have had in Wyoming. 

This situation is not unique to the Wind River Reservation. A number of other tribes and States have grappled with the challenge of 

managing horse populations on tribal lands and in areas managed 

by the Bureau of Land Management. 

Across the grasslands of Wyoming, forage is a valuable commodity. The elk, pronghorn, and the bison were reintroduced to the 

Wind River in 2017. When forage quantity wanes, then wildlife 

moves on. 

6 

Changes to migration patterns have a ripple effect throughout 

the food chain and fundamentally, change the generations’ long tradition of subsistence activities. Hunting also plays an integral part 

in the food security in Wyoming where snowstorms and other inclement weather can delay deliveries to local grocery stores. 

Chairman Brown will relate similar challenges on the Wind 

River. I know he will make clear that subsistence is not limited to 

Alaska and the Pacific Northwest. The tradition, the value and the 

importance of subsistence activities continue to be evident in Wyoming. 

Last year, the Northern Arapaho and Eastern Shoshone 

partnered with a number of groups, including the University of 

Wyoming, to plan a research project to understand the role of elk 

on the Wind River Reservation. 

As we talk about the importance of continuity in migration corridors and effective wildlife management, it is more important than 

ever to recognize the historic and cultural impacts wildlife management can bring. 

Chairman Brown, thank you for traveling through delayed flights 

and storms yesterday to share your perspective with us today. 

Thank you, Chairman Hoeven, for holding the hearing. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Senator Barrasso. 

We will turn to our witnesses. Again, I want to thank all of our 

witnesses for being here, Dr. Hardin, Chairman Brown, Ms. Peltola 

and also Ms. Romero-Briones. Thank you all for joining us. 

We will begin with Dr. Hardin. 

STATEMENT OF JENNIFER HARDIN, PH.D., SUBSISTENCE 

POLICY COORDINATOR, OFFICE OF SUBSISTENCE 

MANAGEMENT, U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 

Dr. HARDIN. Thank you, Chairman Hoeven, Vice Chairman Udall 

and members of the Committee, for the opportunity testify today 

on the subsistence harvest of natural resources on Federal public 

lands in Alaska under the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, ANILCA. 

Alaska Native peoples have depended on have depended on the 

harvest and use of natural resources for food, shelter, clothing, 

transportation and handicrafts, trade, barter and sharing for thousands of years. These subsistence practices are interwoven with 

their unique cultural identities and social ways of life. In more recent history, non-Native peoples living in rural Alaska have come 

to rely on natural resources for their social and economic livelihoods as well. 

My testimony today focuses on the Federal Subsistence Management Program which oversees the subsistence harvest of wildlife 

and fish on Federal public lands and waters by rural Alaska residents in compliance with Title VIII of ANILCA. 

ANILCA prioritized the taking of fish and wildlife for non-wasteful subsistence purposes over the taking of those resources for 

other purposes on Federal public lands in Alaska. As a result of the 

State Supreme Court ruling, the Federal Government has managed 

subsistence harvest on Federal public lands and waters since 1990. 

ANILCA emphasizes the need to balance subsistence opportunities with the conservation of healthy populations of fish and wildVerDate Mar 15 2010 11:12 Dec 27, 2018 Jkt 033836 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 S:\DOCS\33836.TXT JACK
7 

life in order to ensure the continuation of a subsistence way of life 

for future generations. 

Striking this balance is also a central tenet of the traditional ecological knowledge expressed by rural Alaskans engaged in a subsistence way of life. In Title VIII, subsistence priority encompasses 

approximately 50 percent of the land within the State of Alaska 

and applies to both Alaska Native and non-Native rural residents. 

The subsistence hunting and fishing practices Title VIII protects 

reflect the vital relationships between land, culture, cultural identity and the people in rural Alaska. Subsistence harvest is also the 

cornerstone of food security for many rural Alaskans, the vast majority of whom have only intermittent access to village stores and 

limited ability to purchase expensive foods these stores carry. 

The multi-faceted, highly collaborative Federal Subsistence Management Program emphasizes a bottom-up approach which involves 

five Federal agencies, a Federal and public member decision-making board, ten subsistence regional advisory councils, partnerships 

with Alaska Native and rural organizations and the State of Alaska, as well as robust stakeholder input. 

The ten subsistence regional advisory councils provide a direct 

conduit for local and traditional ecological knowledge in the decision-making process. Each council holds at least two public meetings every year to gather local information and make recommendations to the Federal Subsistence Board on subsistence take. 

The FSB is statutorily-required to follow these recommendations 

except under certain circumstances. In turn and before making any 

regulatory decisions, the FSB also holds regular meetings to engage in tribal consultation, accept comments from the public, the 

FSB’s technical review committee and from the State of Alaska. In 

addition, the board solicits comments from the public throughout 

the year. 

To date, the FSB has adopted more than 90 percent of regional 

advisory council recommendations regarding the take of fish and 

wildlife on Federal public lands. Title VIII of ANILCA provides 

guidance on how the Federal subsistence priority should be implemented in the event available resources cannot feed all harvest demands. 

The law emphasizes a multi-phased approach that reduces the 

number of authorized users or usage in order to ensure the subsistence priority is provided to as many federally-qualified users as 

possible. 

The ability to restrict or eliminate wildlife and fish harvest by 

non-federally qualified users in order to prioritize the continuation 

of the harvest practices of rural Alaskans is a unique characteristic 

of the Federal program that is highly valued by rural Alaskans. 

In conclusion, I want to emphasize that management of natural 

resources under Alaska’s intersecting laws and agency mandates is 

complex, especially in light of declining populations of critical subsistence resources. Nevertheless, one of the program’s greatest 

strengths is its bottom-up approach that relies on direct input from 

the local people who will be personally affected by the FSB’s decisions. 

The Federal Subsistence Management Program will continue 

working to balance the harvest needs of rural subsistence users 

8 

with the conservation mandates of land management agencies 

while considering the diverse values of the many user groups seeking opportunities to hunt and fish on Federal public lands in Alaska. 

Thank you and I would be happy to answer any questions. 

[The prepared statement of Dr. Hardin follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF JENNIFER HARDIN, PH.D., SUBSISTENCE POLICY

COORDINATOR, OFFICE OF SUBSISTENCE MANAGEMENT, U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE

SERVICE

Good afternoon Chairman Hoeven, Vice Chairman Udall, and Members of the 

Committee. I am Jennifer Hardin, Subsistence Policy Coordinator for the Office of 

Subsistence Management in Alaska, within the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 

Thank you for the opportunity to testify before the Committee regarding the subsistence harvest of natural resources on Federal public lands in Alaska under the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA). 

The customary and traditional harvest and use of natural resources for food, shelter, clothing, transportation, handicrafts, customary trade barter and sharing, commonly called ‘‘subsistence,’’ has a long history in Alaska. Alaska Native peoples have 

depended on subsistence for thousands of years and these practices are interwoven 

with their unique cultural identities and social ways of life. In more recent history, 

non-Native peoples living in rural Alaska have come to rely on natural resources 

for their social and economic livelihoods as well. 

The management of subsistence harvests of natural resources in Alaska is complex. It is governed by a variety of laws dictating who and what resources are eligible to harvest. For example, management of subsistence harvest of marine mammals is governed by the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA). Under the 

MMPA, coastal dwelling Alaska Natives may harvest marine mammals for subsistence purposes or for the creation and sale of authentic native handicrafts or articles 

of clothing. 

Management of subsistence harvest of migratory birds is governed by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA). The MBTA was amended to allow for spring/summer 

subsistence harvest of migratory birds by Alaska Natives and permanent resident 

non-natives with legitimate subsistence hunting needs living in designated subsistence hunting areas in Alaska. 

The customary and traditional harvest of land mammals, fish outside of marine 

waters and upland birds in Alaska is governed by Title VIII of ANILCA. For the 

Committee’s purposes today, my testimony will focus on the Federal Subsistence 

Management Program, which is charged with implementing the relevant provisions 

included in Title VIII of ANILCA. 

Background of the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act 

(ANILCA) 

ANILCA, which was passed in 1980, is a wide-ranging lands law that established 

more than 100 million additional acres of Federal land in Alaska, thereby enlarging 

federal holdings dedicated to conservation in Alaska to more than 131 million acres. 

Recognizing the unique characteristics of Alaska and the long history and important 

role of the subsistence way of life in Alaska, Congress established, through Title 

VIII of ANILCA, a priority for the taking of wild renewable resources on Federal 

public lands in Alaska for subsistence uses by Native and non-Native rural Alaskans. The Federal subsistence priority applies on approximately 50 percent of the 

lands within the state of Alaska. 

Title VIII of ANILCA gave the State of Alaska the opportunity to implement the 

Federal subsistence priority for rural Alaskans on Federal lands. The State did so 

until 1989 when the State Supreme Court ruled in McDowell v. State of Alaska that 

providing a subsistence priority based on rural residency, as required by ANILCA, 

is unconstitutional because it violates several clauses of the Alaska State Constitution, including a clause that says that fish, wildlife and waters are reserved to the 

people for common use. As a consequence of this decision, the Federal government 

has engaged in subsistence management within Alaska’s Federal public lands and 

waters since 1990. 

In Title VIII of ANILCA, Congress found that the continuation of the subsistence 

way of life by rural Alaskans is essential to their physical, economic, traditional, cultural and social existence. Title VIII established a priority for the taking of fish and 

wildlife for nonwasteful subsistence purposes on Federal public lands in Alaska over 

9 

the taking of those resources for other purposes. The subsistence hunting and fishing practices that are protected by ANILCA reflect and are an expression of vital 

relationships between people, land and cultural identity in rural Alaska. 

The subsistence way of life is also a cornerstone of food security in rural Alaska. 

Approximately 34 million pounds of wild foods are harvested annually by rural Alaskans, which equates to about 275 pounds per person annually. If rural Alaskans did 

not have access to subsistence foods, substitutes would have to be purchased. Alaska 

is twice the size of the state of Texas but has only about 15,000 miles of public 

roads, most of which are gravel. The lack of roads in Alaska means that a large 

portion of rural residents have only limited access to stores. The variety of foods in 

many village stores is quite limited and the cost of store bought foods is prohibitively high for many rural Alaskans. 

ANILCA emphasizes the need to balance subsistence opportunity with conservation of healthy populations of fish and wildlife in order to ensure the continuation 

of the subsistence way of life for future generations. In striking this balance, Congress echoed a central tenet of the traditional ecological knowledge that guided resource management long before the passage of ANILCA and is consistently expressed today by rural Alaskans engaged in the subsistence way of life. 

Federal Subsistence Management Program 

The Secretaries of the Interior and Agriculture have delegated authority to manage the subsistence priority on Federal public lands to the Federal Subsistence 

Board (FSB). The FSB is comprised of eight members, including: the Regional Directors of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, National Park Service, and Bureau of Indian Affairs; the State Director of the Bureau of Land Management; and the Regional Forester of the U.S. Forest Service. Three public members who represent 

rural subsistence users are also members of the board, and one serves as the FSB’s 

chair. The public board members are appointed by the Secretary of the Interior, 

with the concurrence of the Secretary of Agriculture. The FSB establishes all Federal subsistence hunting, trapping, and fishing regulations for fish and wildlife addressed by ANILCA. 

The Federal Subsistence Management Program (Program) is multi-faceted, highly 

collaborative and, reflects a ‘‘bottom-up’’ approach to management. The Program involves five Federal agencies, a Federal and public-member decisionmaking board, 10 

Subsistence Regional Advisory Councils, partnerships with Alaska Native and rural 

organizations, as well as with the State of Alaska, and robust stakeholder input. 

Subsistence Regional Advisory Councils are a large part of what makes Alaska’s 

Federal Subsistence Management Program unique. Title VIII required the establishment of at least six subsistence resource regions, with each having an advisory 

council whose members are local residents with knowledge of subsistence practices 

and uses in their respective areas. Alaska is currently divided into ten subsistence 

resource regions, each with its own Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) chartered subsistence regional advisory council to reflect subsistence harvest and cultural differences within the state and also balance population representation. 

The Subsistence Regional Advisory Council system provides a direct conduit of 

local and traditional ecological knowledge in the decisionmaking process. This approach has been crucial to the Program’s success. Each Council holds at least two 

public meetings every year to gather local information, and make recommendations 

to the FSB on subsistence issues. On issues related to the take of fish and wildlife 

within their respective regions, the Secretary (or his delegate, the FSB) is statutorily required to defer to the recommendations of the regional advisory councils unless a recommendation is not supported by substantial evidence, violates recognized 

principles of fish and wildlife conservation, or would be detrimental to the satisfaction of subsistence needs. To date, the FSB has adopted more than 90 percent of 

regional advisory council recommendations regarding the take of fish and wildlife 

on Federal lands. 

The Federal Subsistence Priority 

The Federal Subsistence Management Program’s focus on the sociocultural aspects of subsistence activities distinguishes it from other hunting and fishing programs. Title VIII explicitly defines ‘‘subsistence uses’’ as ‘‘customary and traditional.’’ Customary and traditional uses are essential components of the subsistence 

way of life for rural residents in Alaska, and as such, once recognized by the FSB, 

are protected under ANILCA, to the maximum extent possible. These recognized 

practices, along with rural status, define the pool of federally qualified subsistence 

users who are eligible for the subsistence priority on Federal public lands. 

The Board recognizes customary and traditional subsistence uses by adopting specific determinations, which identify the fish stocks and wildlife populations that 

10 

have been customarily and traditionally used for subsistence by rural residents of 

specific communities or areas. The framework for making Federal customary and 

traditional use determinations is outlined in the Federal subsistence implementing 

regulations. 

The implementing regulations list eight factors that exemplify customary and traditional uses. The factors emphasize a pattern of use that includes the sharing of 

knowledge and resources across the generations. The eight factors make clear that 

customary and traditional uses are part of a community’s cultural, social, economic 

and nutritional wellbeing, affirming and codifying that the subsistence way of life 

in rural Alaska encompasses more than simply the acquisition of calories. Furthermore, the factors acknowledge that the methods and means of subsistence harvest 

are characterized by efficiency and economy and, therefore, changes to community 

practices over time are expected with the development of new technologies. At 

times, this has created challenges for the FSB when faced with regulatory proposals 

seeking to authorize in regulation hunting or fishing practices under Title VIII of 

ANILCA that conflict with agencyspecific regulations prohibiting such practices. 

The eight-factor analysis applied by the FSB when considering customary and traditional use determinations is intended to protect subsistence use rather than limit 

it. Because of the important role of subsistence in rural Alaska, it is assumed that 

customary and traditional use determinations will necessarily be broad and inclusive. The Federal Subsistence Management Program does not employ a rigid checklist approach to assessing the eight factors. Instead, analyses in the Federal program take a holistic approach and the eight factors serve as a framework for considering whether an area or community generally exhibits the eight factors characteristic of customary and traditional uses. The regional advisory councils and the 

FSB recognize that there are regional, cultural, and temporal variations throughout 

the state and the application of the eight factors will likely vary by region and by 

resource depending on actual patterns of use. Therefore, the eight factors that characterize customary and traditional uses are applied in a manner that provides maximum flexibility to address regional variations across the state and offer protections 

for the subsistence way of life in rural Alaska. 

Customary and traditional use determinations are not intended to restrict harvest 

or allocate resources among Federally qualified subsistence users. However, Title 

VIII of ANILCA also provides guidance on how the Federal subsistence priority 

should be implemented in the event that there are not enough resources available 

to meet all harvest demands on Federal public lands. The Federal prioritization 

process provides a multi-phased approach that reduces the number of users or uses 

authorized on Federal public lands. This process is generally triggered by threats 

to the conservation of healthy populations of fish or wildlife, threats to the continuation of subsistence uses, or threats to the viability of a fish stock or wildlife population. While the subsistence prioritization process often reduces the number of 

users and uses permitted on Federal public lands, the overall intent of these restrictions is to continue to provide harvest opportunity to as many users as possible in 

the long run. 

When populations of fish or wildlife are abundant enough to support the harvest 

demands of all user groups and uses, then all harvest authorized by the State of 

Alaska as well as those authorized in Federal subsistence regulations for Federally 

qualified subsistence users are allowed on Federal public lands. However, if a conservation concern or increasing competition requires a reduction in harvest, 

ANILCA requires that subsistence uses by Federally qualified subsistence users are 

prioritized over other consumptive uses on Federal public lands. The ability to restrict or eliminate harvest by non-Federally qualified users due to threats to the 

continuation of culturally important harvest practices of rural Alaskans is a unique 

characteristic of the Program that is highly valued by rural Alaskans. This aspect 

of the Program has received greater focus and attention as the program has matured with the meaningful infusion of traditional ecological knowledge shared by 

rural Alaskans. ANILCA also stipulates that subsistence uses by rural Alaskans 

may be eliminated on Federal lands only in cases when there is a looming threat 

to the viability of a fish, shellfish or wildlife population. 

Federal Subsistence Regulatory Process 

Stakeholders and the general public play a vital role in initiating changes to Federal subsistence fishing, hunting and trapping regulations, and providing input on 

proposed changes to ensure regulations meet the needs of subsistence users while 

also conserving healthy populations of fish and wildlife. Any individual or group can 

submit proposals to request changes to the Federal subsistence regulations or the 

areas and users eligible for the subsistence priority. The FSB very rarely generates 

11 

proposals to change Federal subsistence regulations. Instead, changes are almost exclusively initiated by users or resource managers through an annual public process. 

The FSB receives administrative and technical support from the Department of 

the Interior Office of Subsistence Management (OSM), which is housed within the 

Alaska Regional Office of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. The OSM is mandated 

to serve each of the agencies and rural members represented on the FSB. 

The FSB recognizes the critical importance of local and traditional knowledge in 

informing management decisions in the Program. It relies on the knowledge shared 

by local people and strives to consider it equitably alongside of western scientific 

knowledge. This expertise can provide a spatial and temporal scale of knowledge 

that is otherwise unavailable to resource managers. All OSM analyses of proposals 

to change Federal subsistence regulations incorporate available traditional ecological knowledge to help the FSB better understand subsistence resources and the people who depend on them. 

The FSB holds annual public meetings to make regulatory decisions. During its 

meetings, the FSB engages in tribal consultation, accepts verbal and written public 

comments, and hears regional advisory council recommendations as well as comments by the FSB’s technical review committee called the Interagency Staff Committee and the State of Alaska. Only after receiving all of this input do the FSB 

members discuss and vote on each proposal. 

Conclusion 

Since 1990, the Federal Subsistence Management Program has endeavored to provide rural residents of Alaska the opportunity to pursue the subsistence way of life, 

as envisioned by Congress and enacted in ANILCA. One of the Program’s greatest 

strengths is its bottom-up approach that relies on direct input from the local people 

who will be directly affected by the FSB’s actions. The program is intentionally designed to be highly collaborative and primarily driven by stakeholder input, biological data and local and traditional knowledge. The Program will continue to seek balance between the harvest needs of rural subsistence users, conservation mandates 

of land management agencies and the diverse values that undergird each of the 

many user groups seeking opportunities to hunt and fish on Federal public lands. 

We appreciate the Committee’s interest in subsistence harvest on Federal public 

lands in Alaska under ANILCA. I would be happy to answer any questions the Committee may have. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Dr. Hardin. 

Chairman BROWN. 

STATEMENT OF HON. ROY B. BROWN, CHAIRMAN, NORTHERN 

ARAPAHO TRIBE 

Mr. BROWN. [Greeting in native tongue.] 

Good afternoon, Chairman Hoeven, Vice Chairman Udall and 

members of the Committee. Thank you for holding this oversight 

hearing and giving me the opportunity to testify. 

My name is Roy Brown. It is an honor to represent the Northern 

Arapaho as their Chairman. The Wind River Reservation is located 

in west-central Wyoming and, for generations, has been the home 

of two sovereign Nations, the Northern Arapaho and the Eastern 

Shoshone Tribes. 

The Northern Arapaho and Eastern Shoshone are unique in that 

we are the only separate sovereign tribes who share jurisdiction 

and ownership of the same reservation. Today, I share the perspective of the Northern Arapaho Tribe. 

The reservation is over 2.2 million acres of gorgeous wide-open 

spaces with an abundance of natural resources, plants, and wildlife 

which are central to our culture and traditions. For this reason, we 

are very protective of the land and resources the land provides. 

One reason that is currently changing the landscape of the reservation is the invasion of wild and feral horses. 

12 

In 2012, the tribes and the Wyoming Fish and Wildlife Service, 

in separate surveys, estimated there were over 2,100 horses in the 

lower mountainous areas in the northwest portion of the reservation. 

Today, our best estimates are that there are over 6,500 horses 

in the wilderness of the reservation. As the wild and feral horse 

population increases, their impact to the natural resources, and 

thus our way of life, becomes more and more critical. 

The emergence of this population can likely be attributed to a 

number of factors. Wild horses have been able to thrive because of 

lack of natural predators, little to no human contact, and the abundance of forage after the area recovered from a long drought. 

Additionally, the lack of adequate horse markets in the last decade suppressed the horse industry and created a market where 

only the most desirable horses would have buyers which has resulted in more feral horses. 

The cost of horse ownership becomes particularly burdensome if 

the horse is injured, sick, old, or untrainable. These horses are 

sometimes let out in the wilderness near or within the reservation 

boundary. 

The Wind River Fish and Game Department has the budget to 

hire three wardens, three wardens to patrol 2.2 million acres, the 

vast majority of it wilderness. This has not proven to be effective 

in catching or deterring domestic horse abandonment. 

As the horse herds increase in numbers, so does the negative impacts to the environment. The horses will take every opportunity 

to overgraze on grasslands they come across. A herd of horses can 

decimate the natural grasses and forbs not only through eating but 

by eroding the ground to the extent the plants are unable to grow 

back. 

The overgrazing leads to noxious weed infestation, long term or 

permanent loss of native grass and forb species, and sedimentation 

and topsoil loss. Mule deer, elk bighorn sheep and moose have all 

been displaced because of increased shortage of grasslands. 

This has been particularly taxing on tribal members who have 

traditionally depended on big game for subsistence. Each June, the 

Wind River Fish and Game sells permits to eligible tribal members 

participating in the Tribe’s traditional Sundance ceremony. 

Historically, this has been a way to allow tribal members to 

carry on the tribal tradition of taking big game for various uses in 

the tribal ceremony. The Sundance hunting season eases the financial burden of tribal members as well as fosters the continuation 

of tribal traditions. 

However, with the growing impact of wild and feral horses, the 

game has been more and more difficult to locate and hunt because 

they have migrated off the reservation or in areas that are very difficult to access. 

Additionally, as horse herds grow and migrate to different parts 

of the reservation, they begin to threaten the plants and materials 

used traditionally and ceremonially. A long-term or permanent loss 

of these plants and materials would be culturally devastating. 

It will take a multi-partner approach to fully address the wild 

and feral horse problem on reservation lands across Indian Country. It will take the cooperation and input of tribes, government 

13 

agencies, and interest groups to assess current impacts and develop 

plans for removal and mitigation of future impacts. 

On the Wind River, horse removal is a priority. The Tribes, along 

with government agencies, have developed a methodology for removal of the wild and feral horse population. However, this is only 

one step to addressing the issue. 

We will require the knowledge of tribal members, wildlife and 

ecology experts, and Federal agencies to help return our lands to 

their former state. To protect the lands from future invasion of 

feral horses, the Wind River tribes will require more enforcement 

figures from our Fish and Game Department. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Brown follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. ROY B. BROWN, CHAIRMAN, NORTHERN ARAPAHO

TRIBE

Introduction 

Good afternoon Chairman Hoven, Vice-Chairman Udall and members of the Committee. Thank you for holding this oversight hearing and giving me the opportunity 

to testify. My name is Roy Brown. It is my honor to represent the Northern Arapaho 

Tribe as Chairman. 

Background 

The Wind River Reservation is located in west-central Wyoming and, for generations, has been the home of two sovereign nations, the Northern Arapaho and the 

Eastern Shoshone Tribes. The Northern Arapaho and Eastern Shoshone are unique 

in that we are the only separate sovereign tribes who share jurisdiction and ownership of the same Reservation. Today I share the perspective of the Northern Arapaho Tribe. The Reservation is over 2.2 million acres of gorgeous wide-open spaces 

with an abundance of natural resources, plants, and wildlife which are central to 

our culture and traditions. For this reason, we are very protective of the land and 

resources the land provides. We have encountered several threats to these natural 

resources throughout the years and have learned to adapt and manage so that our 

tribal citizens may still enjoy the full benefit of what the land provides. One recent 

threat that is currently changing the landscape of the reservation is the invasion 

of wild and feral horses. 

In 2012, the Tribes and the Wyoming Fish and Wildlife Service, in separate surveys, estimated there were over 2,100 hoses in the lower mountainous areas in the 

northwest portion of the reservation. Today, our best estimates are that there are 

over 6,500 horses in the wilderness of the reservation. As the wild and feral horse 

population increases, their impact to the natural resources, and thus our way of life, 

becomes more and more critical. 

Contributing Factors of Invasive Horses 

The emergence of this problem can likely be attributed to a number of factors. 

Wild horses have been able to thrive because of lack of natural predators, little to 

no human contact, and the abundance of forage after the area recovered from a long 

drought. Additionally, the lack of adequate horse markets in the last decade suppressed the horse industry and created a market where only the most desirable 

horses would have buyers which has resulted in more feral horses. Individuals with 

horse ownership could no longer market aggressive or untrainable horses. The cost 

of horse ownership becomes particularly burdensome if the horse is injured, sick, 

old, or untrainable. These horses are sometimes let out in the wilderness near or 

within the reservation boundary. 

Which leads to another contributing factor. Wind River Fish and Game department has the budget to hire three wardens, one of whom serves as the Director of 

the program and carries out day-to-day administrative tasks. Three wardens to patrol 2.2 million acres, the vast majority of it wilderness, has not proven to be effective in catching or deterring domestic horse abandonment. 

Ecological Impacts 

As the horse herds increase in numbers, so does the negative impacts to the environment. The horses will take every opportunity to overgraze on grasslands they 

come across. A herd of horses can decimate the natural grasses and forbs not only 

14 

through eating but by eroding the ground to the extent the plants are unable to 

grow back. The overgrazing leads to noxious weed infestation, long-term or permanent loss of native grass and forb species, and sedimentation and topsoil loss. The 

reservation, particularly the northwestern portion, has many areas that used to be 

grasslands but are now eroded to point where only weeds and other invasive plants 

can grow. Other ecologically related impacts are loss of naturalized water such as 

springs, downcutting or downsizing perennial streams, and degrading water quality. 

Below are pictures of a study from 2014 to measure the impact of wild and feral 

horse herds. Exclusion cages were put in place to prevent horses from grazing in 

small circles of grassland. The picture on the left is a wide shot of grasslands with 

the exclusion cage in place. The picture on the right is a close up of the circular 

plot of excluded grassland after the cage has been removed. The pictures illustrate 

the extent to which the horses overgraze by highlighting the comparison of what the 

grassland looked like prior to and after grazing by horse hers in the wilderness. 

Impacts on Culture and Tradition 

Mule deer, elk, big horn sheep and moose have all been displaced because of increasing shortage of grasslands. The Fish and Wildlife Service have observed less 

use by wintering groups of elk on crucial winter ranges in the northwest area of 

the reservation. When big game are not able to find grasslands on which to forage 

on the reservation, they will migrate to areas where they can find food. Many times, 

that means they migrate off the reservation or to higher elevations. This has been 

particularly taxing on tribal members who have traditionally depended on big game 

for subsistence. Each June, the Wind River Fish and Game sells permits to eligible 

tribal members participating in the Tribe’s traditional Sundance ceremony. Historically, this has been a way to allow tribal members to carry on the tribal tradition 

of taking big game for various uses in the tribal ceremony. The Sundance hunting 

season eases the financial burden of tribal members as well as fosters the continuation of tribal traditions. However, with the growing impact of wild and feral horses, 

the game have been more and more difficult to locate and hunt because they have 

migrated off the reservation or in areas that are very difficult to access. 

Additionally, tribal members have a traditional and/or ceremonial use for many 

plants and materials found on the reservation. As the horse herds grow and migrate 

to different parts of the reservation, they begin to threaten the plants and materials 

used traditionally and ceremonially. A long-term or permanent loss of these plants 

and materials would be culturally devastating. 

Unknown Impacts 

The tribes and its partners are just beginning to discover the ways in which the 

wild and feral horse overpopulation is impacting our reservation. While we cannot 

know with specificity, we suspect the wild and feral horse population has the potential to permanently affect our culture, environment, ecology and economy. 

Addressing the Problem 

It will take a multi-partner approach to fully address the wild and feral horse 

problem on reservation lands across Indian country. It will take the cooperation and 

input of tribes, government agencies, and interest groups to assess current impacts 

and develop plans for removal and mitigation of future impacts. On the Wind River, 

horse removal is a priority. The Tribes, along with government agencies, have developed a methodology for removal of the wild and feral horse population. However, 

this is only one step to addressing the issue. We will require the knowledge of tribal 

members, wildlife and ecology experts, and federal agencies to help return our lands 

to their former state. And to protect the lands from future invasion of feral horses, 


620a1.eps
15 

the Wind River tribes will require more enforcement figures in our Fish and Game 

Department. 

Thank you. 

Senator BARRASSO. Mr. Chairman, let me just point out the size 

of their reservation is, as you described, 2.2 million acres and is 

larger than the combined sizes of the State of Rhode Island and 

Delaware. It is an amazing amount of area. 

The CHAIRMAN. Are you bragging now? 

Senator BARRASSO. It is quite a place. 

The CHAIRMAN. It is a very big area. 

Thank you for being here, Chairman. We appreciate it very 

much. 

I should not tease my fellow Senator. He does a fantastic job. I 

appreciate him being here. 

Ms. Peltola. 

STATEMENT OF MARY SATTLER PELTOLA, EXECUTIVE 

DIRECTOR, KUSKOKWIM RIVER INTER–TRIBAL FISH 

COMMISSION 

Ms. PELTOLA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the 

Committee. 

[Greeting in native tongue.] 

My name is Mary Peltola. I am from the community of Bethel, 

Alaska. I am the Executive Director of the Kuskokwim Inter-Tribal 

Fish Commission. 

As Senator Murkowski mentioned a moment ago, in May 2015, 

the Fish Commission was formed as a consortium of all of the 33 

federally-recognized Alaska Native tribes located along the 

Kuskokwim River. This historical unity of tribes was driven by our 

understanding and insistence that we must have at least a co-management role if our Chinook salmon and way of life are to survive. 

Despite agreements with the U.S. Department of the Interior for 

a tribal role in management of traditional subsistence fisheries, the 

burdensome Federal administrative structure and misplaced policy 

priorities of Fish and Wildlife have undermined the unified effort 

of the tribes to protect our salmon stocks and way of life. 

Tribal self-determination is minimized in this most vital aspect 

of tribal health and well being. Two unique circumstances complicate the Fish Commission’s efforts to manage the Kuskokwim 

River Chinook salmon stock. 

We are federally-recognized tribes. We have a government-to-government relationship with the Department of the Interior and Interior has ample discretion to implement and administer the subsistence rights provided under Federal law for rural tribal members 

through co-management with our rural tribal governments. 

Roughly half of the Kuskokwim River from the village of Aniak 

to the mouth of the Bering Sea flows through the Yukon Delta National Wildlife Refuge, and is subject to Federal jurisdiction. However, before the river passes through Aniak, it is subject to State 

jurisdiction. I should also note the Kuskokwim River is 900 miles 

long. 

Under ANILCA, Federal managers are required to prioritize nonwasteful subsistence uses of fish and wildlife resources by Alaska’s 

16 

rural residents, many of which include the Fish Commission’s tribal members. 

However, State law prohibits prioritizing subsistence uses of fish 

and game resources for Alaska’s rural residents. Instead, State 

managers must provide all Alaskans with equal access and opportunities to take fish and wildlife resources. 

Despite the obvious conflict between these two management regimes, it is Federal policy to defer to State management of the Federal portion of the Kuskokwim River Chinook salmon whenever 

possible. 

Federal managers currently apply and enforce State regulations 

in Federal waters even though those regulations do not meet 

ANILCA’s mandate to prioritize subsistence uses and they defer to 

State management decisions. 

The Federal Subsistence Board administers the subsistence taking and uses of fish and wildlife under ANILCA. The regional directors who sit on the Subsistence Board frequently band together 

and at times their loyalty to support one another undermines their 

protection of subsistence interests. 

The Federal Subsistence Board receives administrative support 

from another Federal agency, the Office of Subsistence Management. While OSM purports to represent the interests of Alaskan 

subsistence users, those interests are oftentimes in conflict with 

Fish and Wildlife Service political and bureaucratic interests limiting OSM’s effectiveness. 

These jurisdictional and administrative issues motivated the 

Fish Commission to enter into a Memorandum of Understanding 

with the Fish and Wildlife Service in February 2016. While on 

paper, the MOU places the Fish Commission as a management 

partner with the Fish and Wildlife Service, the equity of relationship has not been borne out in real life. 

The Fish Commission needs clear and enhanced authority to develop and implement management plans without having to go 

through the burdensome administrative process required by 

ANILCA. 

Congress should consider Federal legislation authorizing a pilot 

project for the Fish Commission that provides authority for the 

Commission to bypass the existing administrative structure and 

process of ANILCA and directly implement the Federal subsistence 

priorities for rural and tribal members. 

Congress should also encourage the Secretary of Interior to engage in rulemaking to create a direct management structure between the Secretary and the Alaska tribal co-management commissioners such that the Secretary can simply delegate authority to 

our tribes to implement subsistence fishery management. 

With that, I would be happy to answer any questions. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Peltola follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF MARY SATTLER PELTOLA, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, 

KUSKOKWIM RIVER INTER-TRIBAL FISH COMMISSION

My name is Mary Peltola. I am the Executive Director of the Kuskokwim InterTribal Fish Commission (KRITFC). I come from Kwethluk, Alaska, a small Yupik 

Alaska Native village located on the Kuskokwim River. I have been fishing with my 

family in the Kuskokwim in our traditional ways my whole life. Despite agreements 

with the U.S. Department of Interior (DOI) for a tribal role in management of tradiVerDate Mar 15 2010 11:12 Dec 27, 2018 Jkt 033836 PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 S:\DOCS\33836.TXT JACK
17 

tional subsistence fisheries, the burdensome federal administrative structure and 

misplaced policy priorities of the FWS have undermined the unified effort of the 

tribes to protect their salmon stocks and way of life. Tribal self-determination is 

minimized in this most vital aspect of tribal health and well-being. We are in a constant, ineffective struggle, and our tribes and salmon are suffering the consequences. After describing the KRITFC and our issues, I have some recommendations for Congress to address these issues. 

In May 2015, the KRITFC was formed as a consortium of all of the 33 federallyrecognized Alaska Native tribes that are located along the Kuskokwim River. This 

historical unity of the tribes was driven by their understanding, and insistence, that 

they must have at least a comanagement role if their Chinook salmon and way of 

life are to survive. Each tribe appoints a Commissioner to the KRITFC who is authorized to make decisions on behalf of the Tribe. The Commissioners select seven 

of their own members to serve on an Executive Council. The KRITFC strives to 

achieve consensus in all decisions. 

For about a decade, the Chinook salmon stocks in the Kuskokwim River have 

been crashing. This has had disastrous consequences for Alaska Natives who depend 

on Chinook salmon for their nutritional, spiritual, and cultural well-being. In light 

of these conservation issues, the KRITFC has consistently and unanimously agreed 

to voluntary fishing restrictions to protect these stocks. The Commission uses its 

collective traditional knowledge and expertise concerning the Kuskokwim River to 

develop culturally appropriate conservation management plans. And, together with 

the Bering Sea Fishermen’s Association, the KRITFC also designs and implements 

harvest data collection programs. The Commission’s goal is to jointly implement 

those plans with U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) and, when possible, with the 

State of Alaska. A central aspect of the tribal management plans is the unfulfilled 

goal that once a management plan is agreed to, and consistent with conservation, 

the tribes are authorized to implement and enforce that plan for their rural tribal 

members. 

While each KRITFC member tribe has a unique relationship with the Kuskokwim 

River, all of our tribal members are unified by the vitally important role salmon— 

in particular, Chinook salmon—plays in our nutritional, cultural, and spiritual wellbeing. Since before contact with Russian traders and missionaries, and certainly before statehood, Alaska Natives were stewards of this resource. We successfully managed the harvest and conservation of all Kuskokwim River salmon stocks according 

to our traditional Yupik and Athabascan rules and values: Providing for children, 

the sick, and the elderly first. Only catching what you can eat. Sharing what you 

cannot. Treating our resources with respect. 

However, since the advent of Federal and State management of Kuskokwim River 

Chinook salmon stocks, tribal management has been sidelined, our Chinook salmon 

stocks are crashing, and both our tribes and our salmon are suffering. Despite our 

proven expertise and interest in sustainably managing our river’s resources, the current interpretation and administration of federal subsistence laws makes it very difficult for the KRITFC to fully engage in traditional subsistence ways of life and to 

exercise self-determination in this most essential right. 

Two unique circumstances complicate the KRITFC’s efforts to manage 

Kuskokwim River Chinook salmon stocks under the existing federal and state subsistence management programs. The first is that unlike the Lower 48, neither the 

Federal nor the State government recognizes our right as a matter of policy or law 

to manage our fish and wildlife resources, despite having successfully done just that 

for thousands of years. As you know, with the exception of the Metlakatla Reserve 

in Southeast Alaska, there are no reservations in Alaska. This is, however, simply 

one excuse used to minimize tribal co-management. We are federally recognized 

tribes, we have a government to government relationship with the DOI, and DOI 

has ample discretion to implement and administer the subsistence rights provided 

under federal law for rural tribal members through co-management with their rural 

tribal governments. 

Empowering tribal management or co-management is the only way to overcome 

the ineffective and inefficient State/Federal dual management system currently in 

place. The Kuskokwim River salmon fisheries are subject to both Federal and State 

management. These management regimes are inescapably tangled by conflicting 

laws and policies. Roughly half of the Kuskokwim River, from its mouth on the Bering Sea to the village of Aniak, flows through the Yukon Delta National Wildlife 

Refuge, and is subject to federal jurisdiction. But, after the river passes through 

Aniak, it is subject to State jurisdiction. Some of our tribes must subsistence fish 

under State regulations, others under federal regulations, and at times it appears 

the purpose of the different regulatory schemes is to undermine tribal unity. Currently, there is no recognized place for all tribes to fish under a united tribal manVerDate Mar 15 2010 11:12 Dec 27, 2018 Jkt 033836 PO 00000 Frm 00021 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 S:\DOCS\33836.TXT JACK
18 

1 16 U.S.C. § 3101 et seq. 2 16 U.S.C. § 3114. 3 16 U.S.C. § 3114(1)-(3). 4See McDowell v. State, 785 P.2d 1 (Alaska 1989). 5 50 C.F.R. § 100.14(a)(State Fish and game regulations apply to public lands and such laws 

are hereby adopted and made a part of the regulations in this part to the extent they are not 

inconsistent with, or superseded by, the regulations in this part). 6 50 C.F.R. § 100.14(a). 7 50 C.F.R. § 100.10(a). 8 50 C.F.R. § 100.10(b)(1). 

agement plan that has been negotiated with all management partners, which would 

thereby bring an effective, unified management plan throughout the entire drainage. 

Under the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA), 1 Federal 

managers are required to prioritize non-wasteful subsistence uses of fish and wildlife resources, such as Kuskokwim River Chinook salmon, by Alaska’s rural residents, 2 many of which include the KRITFC’s tribal members. If conservation concerns require Federal managers to restrict people from hunting or fishing from a 

certain stock, they must consider a user’s customary and direct dependence upon 

the resource as the mainstay of livelihood, the user’s local residency, and the availability of alternative resources before any restrictions are put in place. 3 ANILCA 

helps to ensure that the people who depend on a resource the most have the best 

opportunity to harvest that resource. 

Absent FWS agreeing about the existence of a specific conservation concern or 

threat to subsistence uses, the State manages the Federal portion of the Kuskokwim 

River through State regulations. However, State law prohibits prioritizing subsistence uses of fish and game resources for Alaska’s rural residents. 4 Instead, State 

managers must provide all Alaskans, regardless of whether they live in a rural village where food is costly and scarce or in an urban city where food is plentiful and 

relatively affordable, with equal access and opportunity to take fish and wildlife resources. This means that a lawyer who lives in Anchorage is provided the same opportunity to come to Bethel and fish for Kuskokwim River Chinook salmon as an 

elder subsistence user who is unemployed and depends on the nutrition provided by 

Chinook salmon to make it through the winter without going hungry. 

Despite the obvious conflict between these two management regimes, it is Federal 

policy to defer to State management of the federal portion of the Kuskokwim River 

whenever possible. 5 These conflicting management regimes create serious problems 

that restrict our subsistence opportunities and impede our ability to fully engage in 

our traditional subsistence ways of life and to be fully self-determined in that engagement. One problem is that despite the fact that Federal management is required to prioritize subsistence opportunities for rural residents, Federal managers 

currently apply and enforce State regulations in Federal waters even though those 

regulations do not meet ANILCA’s mandate to prioritize subsistence uses, 6 and 

defer to State management decisions. This is done over the KRITFC’s objection, to 

the detriment of Alaska Native subsistence opportunity and self-determination. 

Alaska’s tribes do not have a direct role in either the Federal or the State management systems. This means that the people who depend on the resource the most 

have little to no say in how that resource is managed. The extent to which the 

KRITFC is able to fully engage in Federal management of the Kuskokwim River is 

controlled by an ineffective and inefficient federal administrative process that is 

stacked against tribal interests and designed to disenfranchise our tribal voices. 

The Federal Subsistence Board (FSB or the Board) is an administrative body created by the Secretaries of Interior and Agriculture created to administer the subsistence taking and uses of fish and wildlife under ANILCA. 7 The FSB has eight members—a Chair, two public members appointed by the Secretaries of Interior and Agriculture, and the Regional Directors of FWS, the Bureau of Indian Affairs, the Bureau of Land Management, National Park Service, and U.S. Forest Service. 8 The 

Public Members are required to be familiar with subsistence users and uses; there 

is no such requirement for the agency Regional Directors. The FSB votes on all regulatory proposals and actions concerning subsistence uses of fish and wildlife on 

Federal public lands. The Regional Directors frequently band together and at times 

their loyalty to support each other undermines their protection of subsistence interests. 

The FSB receives administrative support from another federal agency, the Office 

of Subsistence Management (OSM). It is staffed by anthropologists, biologists, technical and administrative employees, as well as liaisons to the ADFG and Alaska Native communities. OSM communicates with tribal members and other subsistence 

users to clarify regulatory proposals. OSM also conducts tribal consultations when 

19 

9 50 C.F.R. 100.10(d). 

10 50 C.F.R. § 100.10(d)(6). 11 A copy of the MOU is appended to this testimony. 

deemed necessary by agency policy. And, OSM administers each FSB meeting, providing procedural guidance in an effort to ensure a consistent process. However, 

OSM is housed within FWS. While OSM purports to represent the interests of Alaska’s subsistence users, those interests are oftentimes in conflict with FWS’s political 

and bureaucratic interests, limiting OSM’s effectiveness. 

During public hearings held approximately every four months, the FSB considers 

regulatory proposals concerning subsistence uses of fish and game, recommends subsistence regulations for Federal public lands in Alaska for approval to the Secretary 

of Interior, and makes management decisions concerning eligibility to take, allocation, and restriction of subsistence resources. 9 The FSB also decides whether to delegate certain aspects of its authority to agency officials to make in-season subsistence management decisions consistent with frameworks established by the Board. 10

These jurisdictional and administrative issues motivated the KRITFC to enter 

into a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the FWS in February 2016. 11

The MOU was designed to enable the KRITFC, together with the FWS, to cooperatively manage Kuskokwim River Chinook salmon fisheries, to ensure a stronger, 

more self-determined management structure, and to avoid the burdensome administrative process. However, the KRITFC continues to face the same administrative 

delays and bureaucratic obstacles which exclude tribal participation and fail to 

prioritize subsistence opportunities for the rural users who need them the most. 

It is difficult to maintain our traditional Alaska Native subsistence ways of life 

when a federal agency dictates every aspect of the administration of the Federal 

subsistence management program in ways that are often contrary to our self-determination and traditional subsistence way of life. While on paper, the MOU places 

the KRITFC as a management partner with FWS that equity of relationship has 

not been borne out in real life. The KRITFC has attempted to work in good faith 

to cooperatively develop and implement management plans and decisions for 

Kuskokwim River Chinook salmon stocks and subsistence fishing. But, the KRITFC 

continues to find its positions and suggestions diminished or wholly sidelined. 

FWS’s number one priority often appears to be getting along with the State rather 

than ensuring that the subsistence needs of the Kuskokwim tribes and other rural 

users are fulfilled, and that the Chinook stocks are rebuilt. It appears that the FWS 

does not want to be in the position of protecting subsistence rights and managing 

the fishery. The solution is to take the FWS and FSB out of the process, and implement ANILCA’s subsistence priority on the Kuskokwim River directly through these 

rural tribes pursuant to a management plan developed in consultation with the 

State. 

The KRITFC needs clear and enhanced authority to develop and implement management plans without having to go through the burdensome administrative process 

required by ANILCA in order to address continued threats to stock conservation. 

This is vital given the growing impact of climate change on the natural resources 

Alaska Native subsistence users depend upon. The KRITFC offers these specific recommendations to ensure Tribes have central role in implementing and administering ANILCA. 

Congress should consider federal legislation authorizing a pilot project for the 

KRITFC that provides authority for the Commission to bypass the existing administration structure and process of ANILCA, and directly implement the federal subsistence fishery for rural tribal members. The Commission suggests that upon adoption of a unified conservation and subsistence fishery management plan, the tribes 

would implement that plan for their rural tribal members, as well as non-tribal 

members residing in the villages so long as they agree to abide by the management 

plan. The Secretary of DOI would be authorized to review the plan to ensure conservation of fish stocks. If the Tribes and State could not agree on a management 

plan, the default would be federal management. Our Tribes have managed and depended upon Kuskokwim River Chinook salmon for thousands of years. Our Tribes 

understand salmon. They want to sustain it. They want to ensure its continued viability. Congress should recognize our conservation management experience and expertise and authorize this tribal co-management pilot project. 

Congress should also encourage the Secretary of Interior to engage in rulemaking 

to create a direct management structure between Secretary and Alaska Tribal comanagement commissions such that the Secretary can simply delegate authority to 

our Tribes to implement subsistence fishery management, relieving us of the burden 

of having to constantly engage in an ineffective, inefficient federal subsistence administrative structure. 

20 

1State of Alaska v. Felix Flynn et al., District Court for State of Alaska (Alaska 2013) 

It has been the KRITFC’s experience that having only two public members on the 

FSB is woefully insufficient representation for Alaska’s subsistence users. The agency Regional Directors on the FSB often have not lived and don’t really understand 

the subsistence way of life. An immediate fix that Congress could implement would 

be to require the appointment of additional tribal representatives to the FSB resulting in an equal number of public and agency members on the Board. 

Finally, we recommend that it is essential to move OSM out from under FWS so 

that it operates independently of an agency whose policy and administrative actions 

are at times not consistent with providing fully for subsistence uses and needs. Ensuring that OSM is independently funded and managed would allow that agency to 

do its job free of potential ideological and political conflicts. 

Attachments 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF MICHAEL WILLIAMS, ELECTED TRIBAL OFFICIAL, AKIAK

NATIVE COMMUNITY

Wha’Qaa! My name is Michael Williams, currently Vice Chairman of the 

Kuskokwim River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission (KRITFC), past Chairman of the 

KRITFC, Steering Committee Chair to organize KRITFC, former Area Vice President of the National Congress of American Indians, former Chairman of the Association of Village Council Presidents, Former President of the Rural Community Action 

Program, Board Member of the Native American Rights Fund, Former Vice Chairman on the Alaska State Board of Education, and an avid and long-time musher 

and lditarod Sled Dog Race veteran and retired US Army Veteran. I also testified 

before Congress concerning the impacts of climate change on Indigenous Peoples in 

Alaska. 

I appreciate the opportunity to submit my individual testimony in my capacity as 

a Tribal Council Member on an issue that is very close to my heart and mind. I 

am fortunate to have been raised in a Yupiaq Traditional way by my grandparents, 

my parents, and my uncles and aunts learning how to hunt, fish, and gather on our 

traditional lands in Western Alaska. They lived a Customary and Traditional way 

of life, living with the land, waters and air year-round. This life changed when the 

State and Federal Governments came to our communities with their laws that were 

crafted without our knowledge and participation. These laws continue to adversely 

affect the ability of Indigenous Peoples in Alaska to practice our ways of life. 

Akiak Native Community requests that this Committee take the following actions: 

1. Advance and protect Tribal Sovereignty; 

2. Meet with Tribes to address the impacts of State and Federal laws on Indigenous Peoples of Alaska; 

3. Secure ongoing funding for Tribes in Alaska to co-manage and manage natural resources. 

Advance Tribal Sovereignty 

The decision of Kuskokwim River Indigenous fishermen in 2012 to fish outside 

State regulations in order to feed their families resulted in the indictment of Indigenous fishermen. 1 While the Court found that the defendants were guilty of violating 

State law, Indigenous Peoples fished in order to uphold Tribal laws. We recognize 

that Tribal law and State and Federal laws are not always in agreement, and we 

strive to abide by the laws both by which we are governed and by which we also 

govern ourselves. Akiak Native Community is committed to working with Federal 

agencies to ensure that the Federal Government upholds its Trust Responsibilities 

to the 229 Federally-recognized Tribes in Alaska equally along with the other 338 

Federally-recognized Tribes in the United States. 

Indigenous Peoples are the first ‘‘Natural Resource Managers’’ of the lands and 

waters, and fish and wildlife, from which all Alaskans benefit. Because of Indigenous Knowledge—which draws upon Ancestral territorial ties, our understanding of 

our lands, and our respect and love for our Natural Resources—Tribal participation 

in management is paramount to managing fish and wildlife populations for conservation and to ensure future subsistence uses of such populations. Tribal sovereignty is upheld when Tribes are recognized as effective co-managers of the territories and fish and wildlife that sustain us. 

On May 5, 2015, 33 Federally-recognized Tribes organized as the Kuskokwim 

River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission (KRITFC), modeling the Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission (NWIFC) that organized after the Boldt Decision in the 1970’s 

21 

2 United States v. Washington, 384 F. Supp. 312 (W.D. Wash. 1974), affirmed, 520 F.2d 676 

(9th Cir. 1975). 3See attached Memorandum of Understanding. 

with the great Billy Frank, Jr. of the Nisqually Indian Tribe. 2 Billy traveled to our 

region to help Tribes in Alaska advocate to get on the management table. We are 

forever grateful for his contribution along with the ongoing support of the NWIFC 

Board. 

In addition to the KRITFC, there have been numerous other agreements between 

Indigenous Peoples in Alaska and the Federal government concerning fish and wildlife management, including management of migratory birds, marine mammals, 

whales, polar bear, and walrus. These agreements have yielded successful results. 

Indigenous Knowledge and participation played a huge part. Fish and wildlife populations were replenished when Tribes co-managed and when Tribal sovereignty was 

recognized. 

Following the creation of a Memorandum of Understanding between the KRITFC 

and the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), KRITFC Tribes continue 

to work to increase their involvement as co-managers of Kuskokwim River fisheries 

with the USFWS. 3 However, as Mary Sattler Peltola addressed in her testimony before this Committee on May 20, 2018, the current Federal subsistence management 

structure impedes Tribal capacity to be effective co-managers. 

We ask that Congress recognize the vital importance of Ancestral territories and 

fish and wildlife to Indigenous Peoples in Alaska by amending the Alaska National 

Interest Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA) to create a clear management role for 

Tribes separate from rural Alaska residents. 

Meet With Tribes 

Recognizing Tribal sovereignty requires, in part, that Federal agencies meaningfully negotiate with Tribes on issues that impact Tribal wellbeing. In this spirit, we 

ask that Congress authorize the Secretary of the Interior to conduct field hearings 

throughout Alaska with Tribes in order to better understand how Federal laws such 

as ANILCA affect Indigenous Peoples in Alaska. These hearings can inform legislators of the changes in Federal law necessary to more fully recognize Tribal sovereignty, protect Tribal uses of fish and wildlife, and support Tribal co-management 

of natural resources. 

Secure Funding For Tribes 

We ask that Congress secure ongoing funding for individual Tribes in Alaska as 

well as for Tribal bodies, including KRITFC, charged with co-managing fish and 

wildlife. Funding will support Tribal management efforts as well as Tribal capacity 

to address the welldocumented effects of climate change. The negative effects of climate change to which Indigenous Peoples of Alaska must adapt are experienced also 

by Indigenous Peoples on a global scale. Adequate funding from Congress will help 

position Indigenous Peoples of Alaska to be partners in addressing the effects of climate change and resource extraction nationally and internationally. Many Tribes 

are reviving management practices that are time-tested, climate-resilient, and have 

value to all Peoples, Indigenous and nonIndigenous alike. We ask Congress to nurture these efforts to help them grow across all our lands and waters. 

Akiak Native Community is committed to preserving the health of our People and 

our fish and wildlife in perpetuity. Our goal is for our People and fish and wildlife 

to be well again. Without a meaningful role in the co-management and management 

of our Ancestral territories and fish and wildlife, the health of our People and our 

natural resources will remain threatened. Thank you very much. 

MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING BETWEEN UNITED STATES 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 

ALASKA REGION AND KUSKOKWIM RIVER INTER–TRIBAL FISH 

COMMISSION 

This Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) is entered into in order to formalize 

the fishery management partnership between the United States Department of the 

Interior (Department), U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) and the Kuskokwim 

River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission (hereinafter referred to as ‘‘Commission’’). 

ARTICLE I—BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES 

In his address to the Alaska Federation of Natives Convention in October 2014, 

and to the National Congress of American Indians in February 2015, Deputy Secretary Mike Connor announced plans to develop a meaningful Partnership Project 

22 

that could be implemented administratively, with the goal of more meaningfully integrating Kuskokwim Tribes and Federally qualified users into Federal fisheries 

management on the Kuskokwim River drainage. Development of this MOU is one 

component of the Kuskokwim River Partnership Project. It formalizes a management partnership that begins to address the long-standing desire of Alaska Native 

Tribes in the Kuskokwim Drainage to engage as co-managers of fish resources. 

The Association of Village Council Presidents (A VCP) and Tanana Chiefs Conference (TCC) are regional Tribal organizations whose membership includes all of 

the federally recognized tribes in the Kuskokwim drainage. The A VCP and TCC 

were instrumental in the establishment of the Commission and in the development 

of this MOU. Both AVCP and TCC have adopted resolutions that support the Commission’s participation in the Kuskokwim River Partnership Project through the 

signing of this MOU. 

The Partnership Project sets forth a two-part structure to meaningfully integrate 

Kuskokwim Tribes and Federally qualified users into the decisionmaking process for 

fisheries management on Federal public waters of the Kuskokwim River drainage. 

The MOU represents one component of a two part structure that will implement the 

2014 directive from the Deputy Secretary to establish a demonstration project for 

the Kuskokwim River Drainage that integrates Alaska Natives into Federal fishery 

management into the decisionmaking process. The MOU builds upon the experience 

and success gained from consultations between the Commission and the Yukon 

Delta National Wildlife Refuge Manager related to Federal in-season fishery management decisions for the 2015 season, and will provide an opportunity to advance 

issues that are critical to the Commission and Federally qualified users in future 

years. The second component of the Partnership Project is a proposal cooperatively 

developed by the Commission, the Office of Subsistence Management (OSM), and 

the Service which was submitted to the two Regional Advisory Councils (Councils) 

in the Kuskokwim River drainage for a subcommittee jointly chartered by the two 

Councils. The goals of the proposal include providing a meaningful role for the Commission in the Federal subsistence management process and developing unified recommendations for fishery management for the Kuskokwim River drainage. 

The Department of the Interior and the Service also share a mutual concern with 

the Commission for the conservation of fish resources and their habitats and ensuring the opportunity for the continuation of the subsistence way of life. Both are engaged in fish management strategies and programs and desire to develop and maintain a cooperative relationship which will be in the best interests of the Parties and 

the resource. 

Additionally, the Department, Service, and Commission share the goal of meaningfully integrating the tribal governments located in Kuskokwim River drainage, 

through their membership and participation in the Commission, as broadly as possible, into the management of Federal public waters in the Kuskokwim River drainage fisheries. 

The Parties share the goal of effective and timely communication of all information and consultation and collaboration for in-season fishery management actions; 

ARTICLE II—AUTHORITY 

The following authorities support the MOU: 

• Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA) Title VIII 

• Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act 

• Executive Order 13175 ‘‘Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments’’ 

• Secretarial Order 3317, Department of Interior Policy on Consultation with Indian Tribes (December 2011) 

• Secretarial Order 3335 ‘‘Reaffirmation of the Federal Trust Responsibility to 

Recognized Indian Tribes and Individual Indian Beneficiaries’’ 

• U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Native American Policy (1994) 

• Federal Subsistence Board regulations 36 CFR 242 and 50 CFR 100 

The Federal Subsistence Board (Board) is vested with authority delegated by the 

Secretaries of the Interior and Agriculture to manage subsistence uses and resources on the Federal public lands in Alaska. The Board may delegate specific regulatory authority related to the in-season management of fish species for the Federal public waters in the Kuskokwim Area. The manager of the Yukon Delta National Wildlife Refuge (Refuge is currently delegated this authority. The Letter of 

Delegation from the Board to the Refuge manager is attached as an appendix. 

The Department has a government-to-government relationship and trust responsibility with the Federally recognized tribes in the Kuskokwim River Drainage and 

23 

is committed to implementing programs that further tribal self-determination. The 

Federally recognized Kuskokwim River Tribes are the governing bodies for the tribal members who are residents of these rural communities in the Kuskokwim River 

Drainage. The Kuskokwim River Tribes established the Commission for the purpose 

of engagement in the management of Kuskokwim River fisheries. 

ARTICLE III—STATEMENT OF WORK 

This MOU formalizes an agreement for substantive consultation between the Federal in-season manager and the Commission prior to in-season management decisions and actions. The MOU also acknowledges the collaborative development of a 

proposal by the Parties for a fisheries subcommittee jointly chartered by the Western Interior and Yukon-Kuskokwim Delta Regional Advisory Councils (Councils). 

THE SERVICE AGREES: 

1. The Federal in-season manager will consult with the Commission for the purpose of collaboratively making fisheries management decisions with the integration 

and application of Commission knowledge, information, and management strategies. 

2. All relevant data and information will be provided by the Service to the Commission at the earliest practicable time before consultation. 

3. The Federal in-season manager will serve as the primary point of contact for 

the agency. 

4. To engage the Commission as partners in the development and implementation 

of fishery management projects for the Kuskokwim River drainage, such as research, monitoring, harvest surveys, subsistence studies, test fisheries, and other 

programs, and to enter into cooperative funding agreements with the Commission 

to support such capacity building to the degree funding is available from the Service 

or the Department. 

5. To provide a timely written justification to the Commission when the Refuge 

manager is unable to reach consensus with the Commission regarding Kuskokwim 

Fisheries in-season management decisions. The justification will include an explanation of how the Commission’s traditional and scientific information and position 

were integrated and considered in the management decision. 

THE COMMISSION AGREES: 

1. To maintain its status as a tribal organization with membership open to all 

of the Federally recognized Tribes in the Kuskokwim River drainage, that the Commission represents a significant majority Kuskokwim tribes representing all segments of the drainage, and that the Commission is authorized by its member tribes 

to engage in the management activities formalized through this MOU. 

2. To recognize the Refuge Manager at Yukon Delta National Wildlife Refuge as 

the Federal in-season manager to the extent such authority has been delegated by 

the Board, including delegated authority to issue emergency special actions for the 

management of fish within the Federal public waters of the Kuskokwim River 

drainage. The scope of delegation set by the Board and limited by 36 CFR 

242.10(d)(6) and 50 CFR 100.10(d)(6). 

3. To provide all relevant data and information to the Service at the earliest practicable time before consultation, including local and traditional observations and 

knowledge and regional customary and traditional fishing practices. 

4. To inform the Kuskokwim River Villages about in-season and other fishery 

management plans and actions. 

5. To meaningfully engage in consultations with the Service to collaboratively 

manage fish in the Kuskokwim River drainage. 

6. To designate an in-season consultation committee composed of the fewest number of Commissioners that can adequately represent the member tribes, understanding that the lower, middle, and upper regions of the watershed will be equitably represented. 

7. To assist the Service with communication and outreach of critical biological and 

regulatory information to Commission members throughout the year. 

THE PARTIES MUTUALLY AGREE: 

1. To engage in consultation and collaboration throughout the year to coordinate 

planning for management actions regarding fish resources on Federal public waters 

of the Kuskokwim River, and to facilitate development of a unified management 

strategy that is informed by traditional ways of knowing and science that is biologically, environmentally and culturally sound. 

24 

2. Each party will engage in consultation and collaboration with an open mind 

and without committing to a special action before consultation occurs between the 

Parties. The Parties will notify each other, in a timely manner, of discussions with 

other management agencies and provide a summary of the information exchanged. 

3. Both parties acknowledge the dynamics of in-season management and that in 

certain instances, due to the need for a timely decision, immediate consultation and 

collaboration may not be possible or will need to be abbreviated. Both parties will, 

in good faith, minimize the instances when abbreviated consultations occur and will 

meet soon thereafter to discuss the management action taken and modifications 

that may be necessary. 

4. The Service and Commission will contribute to and support a Technical Advisory Body (TAB) that consists of fisheries biologists/scientists, social scientists, and 

traditional knowledge experts. The TAB will meet as requested by the Service or 

Commission, freely exchange information, and strive to cooperatively develop a unified presentation of information for consideration during negotiation, consultation 

and collaboration. 

5. The Federal in-season manager and the Commission will negotiate for the purpose of striving to reach consensus on in-season management decisions. The parties 

expect that consensus will be reached for a large majority of issues. If consensus 

cannot be reached by negotiation, the Commission may take one or more of the actions below: 

A. The Commission may request that a conference call or meeting occur with 

the Service Regional Director/Deputy Regional Director, the Assistant Regional 

Director of OSM, the Federal in-season manager, and, at the request of the 

Commission, the Bureau of Indian Affairs Regional Director or Deputy Regional 

Director, in a timely fashion to engage knowledgeable experts and key decision 

makers in a discussion for the purpose of achieving a mutually beneficial compromise. This strategy is consistent with the qasgiq model, a Yup’ik problemsolving framework, similar to a collaborative decisionmaking framework widely 

practiced among Federal agencies known as operational leadership. The Federal 

in-season manager maintains delegated authority. Members of the TAB may be 

requested to attend the meeting. 

B. The Commission may submit a Special Action Request with urgency to the 

Board in an effort to address a concern. The Service agrees to request that the 

Commission’s Special Action Request be addressed with urgency. 

C. The Commission may submit a request to the Board to reconsider an in-season management action. 

6. To support the development and establishment of a joint subcommittee appointed by the Councils. The goal for the Subcommittee is to develop recommendations to the Councils on the initiation, review, and evaluation of proposals for regulations, policies, management plans, special actions (in-season management), and 

other matters or potential impacts relating to management, conservation, and subsistence users of fish in the Kuskokwim River Area, or for fisheries which have impacts on Kuskokwim River Area stocks. Fishery proposals developed by the Subcommittee and forwarded to the Board by both Councils as recommendations will 

be entitled to deference in accordance with Section 805 of ANILCA and Board policy. 

7. If the Councils choose not to establish a Subcommittee that incorporates the 

substance of the Parties’ proposal, the Parties will jointly develop a proposal for the 

Department of the Interior under the authority of ANILCA Section 805(a) or other 

legal authority that incorporates the objectives of the Subcommittee. 

8. To send the same representatives to attend consultations. The parties may send 

an alternate to consultations only when necessary, recognizing this should only 

occur on a very limited basis. 

9. To develop supplemental memoranda of understanding between the Commission and the Refuge, as may be required to implement the objectives of the Partnership Project as it develops. 

10. To attend and meaningfully participate in consultations during in-season fisheries management and at other times when requested by either Party, and to promote a professional, productive, and collaborative atmosphere, while avoiding 

confrontational speech or behaviors. 

11. To actively encourage and seek the participation of the State of Alaska fishery 

managers in the consultation and collaboration process. 

25 

12. To jointly develop a proposal to the Board for an abbreviated process that will, 

to the degree practicable, provide an opportunity for timely relief when a request 

is submitted to reconsider an in-season management action. 

ARTICLE IV—TERMS OF AGREEMENT 

1. This MOU shall become effective upon the signature of the Service and the 

Commission. 

2. This MOU shall continue until terminated by the Service or the Commission. 

A party may terminate this MOU by providing sixty (60) days advance written notice to the other party. Upon notice of termination, the Parties will meet promptly 

to discuss the reasons for the notice and to try to resolve their differences. 

3. Amendments to this MOU may be proposed by the Service or the Commission 

and shall become effective upon the signature of the Parties. 

4. If the Board changes the delegation of authority for the Kuskokwim River Federal in-season manager, this MOU will be carried forward and amended to reflect 

the new delegation. 

5. Any significant change in the scope of Federal public lands or tribal lands in 

the Kuskokwim region will require a re-evaluation and possible amendment of this 

MOU. 

6. This MOU shall be re-evaluated by the Parties after two (2) years from the date 

of execution. 

The CHAIRMAN. Ms. Romero-Briones. 

STATEMENT OF A–DAE ROMERO–BRIONES, J.D., LL.M, 

DIRECTOR OF PROGRAMS, NATIVE AGRICULTURE AND 

FOOD SYSTEMS, FIRST NATIONS DEVELOPMENT INSTITUTE 

Ms. ROMERO-BRIONES. [Greeting in native tongue.] 

It is an honor to be here Chairman Hoeven, Vice-Chairman, and 

members of the Committee. 

I come from the beautiful Cochiti Pueblo in New Mexico but I am 

also Kiowa from the Kiowa Tribe of Oklahoma. 

I have the honor of working as the Director of Programs for First 

Nations Development Institute. I run the Native Agriculture and 

Food Systems Initiative. First Nation’s mission is to support tribal 

communities in economic development with the fundamental belief 

that tribes have the wherewithal, knowledge and ability to create 

their own solutions for their communities. 

I have submitted written comments for you to review at your 

pleasure. Those comments were generated by input from the many 

grantees we have. We currently serve or have served over 307 different grantees that are working on community-based food and agricultural projects. A large number of those grantees are focused on 

documenting their subsistence practices as a way of giving clout to 

the practices that have sustained their communities for generations. 

I come to you at a special time in my community. We recently 

completed the harvesting of our scung which is wild celery. When 

you look at the harvesting time, it coincides with the different seasons and provides an important and sometimes the only source of 

iron and Vitamin C to the community after a long winter in New 

Mexico. 

Senator Udall, thank you for your work on behalf of tribal communities and also for describing New Mexico as beautiful as most 

think of it as a desert. It has much to offer this Country. 

I want to focus my oral comments on two important prospects. 

My community is located on the banks of the Rio Grande River. In 

order to manage whatever resources, whether elk, deer, turkey, 

26 

and fish that makes its way to the Rio Grande River and have 

made their existence part of our existence in the subsistence lifestyle, we have to deal with over seven different Federal agencies 

starting at the top of the mountain where we have the National 

Forest Service all the way down to the Bureau of Reclamation to 

the Bureau of Land Management, BIA and even the Department 

of Defense. 

In order to manage our traditional lifestyles having to meet with 

so many different agencies, with so many different tribal consultation policies, and different perspectives from Federal managers, is 

a challenge. That is an understatement. 

In addition, one of the most critical issues happening in a lot of 

our communities around the Country is the threat of commercialization of some of our traditional foods and traditional products. 

I have the honor of serving as a National Organic Standards 

Board member within the Organic Food Production Act which does 

not recognize tribal communities. There is a provision allowing for 

organic certification of wild products. In California right now, when 

the tribes are making their way to process and save seaweed for 

the winter months, the commercialization of seaweed has created 

some conflicts along the coast. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Romero-Briones follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF A-DAE ROMERO-BRIONES, J.D., LL.M, DIRECTOR OF

PROGRAMS, NATIVE AGRICULTURE AND FOOD SYSTEMS, FIRST NATIONS

DEVELOPMENT INSTITUTE

Introduction 

Chairman Hoeven, Vice-Chairman, and members of the Committee, my name is 

A-dae Romero-Briones. I am a member of the Cochiti Pueblo, one of 19 Pueblo communities in New Mexico. I am also Kiowa from the Kiowa Tribe in Oklahoma. 

I serve as the Director of Programs for the Native Agriculture and Food Systems 

Initiative (NAFSI) at First Nations Development Institute (First Nations). First 

Nations’s mission is to strengthen American Indian economies to support healthy 

Native communities. We invest in and create innovative institutions and models 

that strengthen asset control and support economic development for American Indian people and their communities. We believe that when armed with appropriate 

resources, Native peoples hold the capacity and ingenuity to ensure the sustainable, 

economic, spiritual and cultural well-being of their communities. This belief largely 

stems from examples of long-standing food system management that includes subsistence practices in Indigenous communities. 

NAFSI began in 2002 because of the need in Indian Country for financial support 

for community-based food system projects that include financial and policy support 

for traditional gathering, hunting, and management practices. Since 2002, First Nations has awarded 307 grants totaling more than $7.58 million to Native organizations dedicated to increasing food access and improving the health and nutrition of 

Native children and families. This number, however, pales in comparison to the 

more than 1,450 requests received that totali more than $49.7 millionover that time, 

illustrating that a huge unmet need for funding for these types of projects continues 

in Native communities. 

These comments were generated with input from communities we support at First 

Nations Development Institute, our friends at the Indigenous Food and Agricultural 

Initiative at the University of Arkansas, and from personal experience coming from 

a community that relied heavily on subsistence agriculture. With increased pressures for energy, urban expansion, and ever changing environmental conditions, Indigenous subsistence practices are becoming all the more important to the communities that practice them. It is my hope that we all recognize and acknowledge the 

ecological managing that subsistence practices (hunting, gathering, fishing, etc.) 

offer to support Indigenous communities and people, ecosystems, regional environments, and our country. These comments are also made with the understanding 

that there is a government recognition of Tribal Sovereignty and Trust ResponsiVerDate Mar 15 2010 11:12 Dec 27, 2018 Jkt 033836 PO 00000 Frm 00030 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 S:\DOCS\33836.TXT JACK
27 

1 ‘‘Subsistence.’’ Google Dictionary, Google, 19 June 2018, www.google.com/search? 

q=subsistence&rlz=1C1EJFAlenUS800US800&oq=subsisten 

&aqs=chrome.0.69i59j69i60j69i57j0l3.1924j1j9&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF–8. 2Subsistence use: The customary and traditional use by Native Americans of renewable resources. For Alaska, specific statutory definition of ‘‘subsistence uses’’ comes from section 803 

of the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 and is paraphrased as ‘‘the customary and traditional uses by rural Alaska residents of wild renewable resources for direct personal or family consumption as food, shelter, clothing, tools, or transportation; for the making 

and selling of handicraft articles out of nonedible by-products of fish and wildlife resources 

taken for personal or family consumption; for barter, or sharing for personal or family consumption; and for customary trade.’’ 

bility that underlies any government approach, whether through legislation or regulation or otherwise, meant to protect Tribal Nationhood which includes the food system institutions that sustain those nations. Lastly, these comments focus largely on 

Indigenous communities located in the lower 48 because Alaska presents its unique 

historical and present day circumstances. 

Subsistence Practices Are Ecological Management Practices 

Subsistence should be recognized as sustainable ecological management practices 

worthy of protection. Far too often, subsistence practices are seen as passive activities isolated to Indigenous communities and focused solely on ‘‘food gathering.’’ Yet, 

subsistence practices include hunting, gathering for food, medicine, tools, traditional 

arts like clothing, dying, basketmaking and building, fishing, and controlled burning. Subsistence is not a singular ‘‘food gathering’’ activity, but encompasses a 

multi-dimensional approach to environmental understanding and management that 

is embodied in the lifeways of a community. 

In mainstream society, subsistence denotes production at a level sufficient only 

for one’s own use or consumption without any surplus for trade or the action of 

maintaining or supporting oneself at a minimum level. 1 However, Indigenous subsistence practices are much more than minimal levels of production, they are the 

practical manifestation of generations of Indigenous knowledge institutionalized in 

ecological management systems. In short, subsistence practices empower Indigenous 

communities, allowing them to manage their environments, and the human presence within that environment, and to adjust to environmental changes with the goal 

of ensuring environmental health for generations. 

This long-standing approach to environmental management ensures that a community is ‘‘balanced’’ within their own environments and eco-systems.. In communities where we see a disruption of subsistence lifeways, we also tend to see a greater dependence on retail markets and their support networks, and thus a greater 

likelihood of over-consumption and waste. Once lost, subsistence practices, that have 

been strengthened over generations, are much more difficult to re-create, re-teach, 

and re-learn. 

As a Nation and at First Nations Development Institute, we have numerous examples of subsistence practices maintaining and improving local ecosystems from 

watershed improvement, species population balance, endemic plant and animal protection, and creating a blue print for climate change adaption. More often than not, 

subsistence communities are often the first alarm when environmental changes 

occur as we see with climate change. 

Too often, we think of subsistence as a practice that is limited to places like Alaska where the remote nature of villages and communities is common. 2 Yet, subsistence practices (ecological management) occurs in almost every Indigenous community through the lower 48, Alaska, and Hawai’i. Subsistence practices are not only 

important to some of the most food insecure Indigenous populations, subsistence 

practices are practiced intentionally and by choice by many Indigenous people across 

this nation to perpetuate a shared responsibility to our human and non-human community, and shape environmental conditions to ensure the continued environmental 

and human health for future generations. 

Subsistence Practices Today 

Toni Stanger-McLaughlin, an attorney, wife, and mother from the Coleville 

Tribe in Washington spent several years working for USDA in Washington, DC. 

She now resides with her family on Coleville where she practices a subsistence 

lifestyle with her husband and three children. She says, ‘‘My family survives on 

either three deer or one elk or one moose and a small deer for dried meat. Last 

year, we got a cow elk and only needed one other deer. Most years we get 3– 

4 smaller deer, just enough to get our family through an entire year. We need 

6–7 large wild salmon, and three gallons of berries and a couple gallon size bags 

of other assorted roots and medicine. We also get a few small birds. All harVerDate Mar 15 2010 11:12 Dec 27, 2018 Jkt 033836 PO 00000 Frm 00031 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 S:\DOCS\33836.TXT JACK
28 

3 Email Communication. June 15, 2018. 

4 Henchy, G., Cheung, M., & Weill, J. (200). WIC in Native American communities: Building 

a healthier America—Report summary. Food Research and Action Center. Washington, DC. 5Gunderson C. (2008). MeasTuring the extent, depth, and severity of food insecurity: an application to American Indians in the USA. Journal of Population and Economics. 21: 191–215. 6First Nations Development Institute. (2018) ‘‘Indian Country Food Price Index: Exploring 

Variation in Food Pricing Across Native Communities—A Working Paper II’’. Longmont, Colorado: First Nations Development Institute. 7 2010 American Community Survey for the American Indian and Alaska Native alone population 8 2010 American Community Survey for the American Indian and Alaska Native alone population 

vested on my reservation or in traditional seeded areas. I grew up like this and 

so will my children. I didn’t buy salmon in a store until I was in law school. 

During certain times of the year, areas of my reservation can experience upwards of 67 percent unemployment and still survive through subsistence hunting and fishing. 3

From the salmon fisherman and acorn gatherers on the California Coast to the 

maple syrup and clam shell gatherers on the coasts of New England, ecological management is tied directly to Indigenous food systems as a codification of the relationship between Indigenous people and their environment. When that environment 

changes, the effects of that change is directly tied to the people who depend on that 

environment. While modern science requires data collection over time, Indigenous 

people are perhaps the best examples of generational data keepers. 

Subsistence is, in fact, a process by which a community maintains their relationship with the environment. Through this process, the community continues to gather data and information about changing environments, and assist in managing those 

changes through time-proven practices such as hunting and gathering. 

Despite the presence and convenience of the American retail food system, many 

communities still continue to practice subsistence both by choice and necessity, as 

demonstrated earlier by Toni’s story. Toni can live and work wherever she so chooses, yet chooses to live within her own community practicing subsistence. But also, 

there are many Tribal people who have no choice but to depend on subsistence. 

Indian Country has some of the highest insecurity rates among any population, 

some of the highest food costs, and lowest incomes. One out of 12 Native individuals 

is so food insecure as to be classified as hungry. 4 American Indians have the highest food insecurity in the U.S., with Native households with children having a food 

insecurity rate of 28 percent compared to 16 percent for non-Natives. 5 An overlay 

of the USDA Food Deserts Locator map with Native communities shows an absence 

of retail supermarkets. Local convenience stores emphasize high-priced, nutritionally-deficient and preserved foods. 

In a recent First Nations Development Institute study called The Indian Country 

Food Price Index: Exploring Variation in Food Pricing Across Native Communities— 

A Working Paper II, we found that Tribal communities in the contiguous United States (or lower 48), over the 12-month study, paid on average $8.41 more for a basket of food items than the national average. Similarly, in Alaska Native villages, 

shoppers on average paid $35.84 more when compared to the national average for 

the same basket of food items. The national average for the basket of items was 

$23.28. 6 These price differences are significant when you consider that the median income of American Indian and Alaska Native households was averaged at $35,062, 

compared with $50,046 for the nation as a whole. 7 In addition, 28.4 percent of 

American Indians and Alaska Natives that were in poverty in 2010, compared to 

15.3 percent for the general nation. 8 Based on these statistics, many American Indian communities are more food insecure, have few retail food establishment options, and pay higher prices for small amounts of food. While this is seemingly a 

glum profile, many American Indian people thrive because of the Indigenous ecological management (subsistence) practices continue to provide purpose, continuity, and 

sustenance to the communities who practice them. However, increased environmental pressures for both energy and housing, urban sprawl, climate change, ecological management (subsistence) practices are consistently challenged and undermined. 

Barriers 

Although ecological management (subsistence) practices could once be exercised 

freely, the increasing limitations on Indian land ownership has created barriers that 

limit a Tribal Nation’s ability to practice long-standing ecological management (subsistence). First, Indian Country is now only a small fraction of what Indigenous people once occupied, but even within those lands still under Indigenous ownership/ocVerDate Mar 15 2010 11:12 Dec 27, 2018 Jkt 033836 PO 00000 Frm 00032 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 S:\DOCS\33836.TXT JACK
29 

9 National Congress of American Indians. ‘‘Demographics.’’ Home NCAI, 2018, www.ncai.org/ 

about-tribes/demographics 10 USDA Office of Tribal Relations and USDA Forest Service. ‘‘Report to the Secretary of Agriculture: USDA Policies and Procedures Review and Recommendations Indian Sacred Sites.’’ (Dec 

2012) 

cupation ecological management (subsistence) practices may be inhibited depending 

on the type of land title designation. Second, important lands outside of Tribal occupation are likely within federal agency like the US Forest Service, Bureau of Land 

Management, Bureau of Reclamation, and the Department of Defense. These lands 

are accessible at the discretion of the federal managers. While some progress has 

been made to develop protocols to allow for Tribal nations to access some federal 

lands, more needs to be done to ensure an objective, less discretionary, process. 

Land Holdings 

Indian Country encompasses over 56 million acres. There are 302 forested Indian 

reservations which encompass 17.9 million acres of Indian forest lands—7.7 million 

acres of timberlands and 10.2 million acres of woodlands. One hundred and ninetynine reservations contain timberlands and 185 reservations contain woodlands. 9

While these landholding is seemingly large, complications in land management 

looms larger. The differences in land title, Tribal trust lands, allotted trust lands, 

and fee lands often results in different management rules on designated parcels, so 

access to these lands for hunting, gathering, and management may be limited, or 

worse, inaccessible to Tribal people despite being within Tribal boundaries. 

It is recognized that Tribal Nations are fully in control of treaty rights that often 

include ecological management (subsistence practices) within the boundaries of a 

reservation, yet, treaty rights over hunting, fishing, and gathering are heavily impacted by activities outside of reservation boundaries. It should be recognized that 

the exercise of Tribal treaty rights within reservation boundaries MUST be considered when making determinations about off-reservation activities that would affect 

treaty rights within the reservation, such as management of habitats and how those 

habitats relate to National forest timber harvest, recreation, water, grazing, and 

mineral exploration. 

Federal Lands 

Federal land holdings are of significant importance and impact to Indigenous ecological management (subsistence) practices. A few, but not all, of the federal agencies that have impact on ecological management (subsistence) practices are listed 

and discussed below: 

1. National Forest Service 

‘‘The Forest Service shares nearly 3,000 miles of contiguous border with AI/ANowned lands and acknowledges that many lands now within the NFS are the 

ancestral homelands and ceded territories of many Tribes. This makes the agency and Tribes more than just neighbors; they are partners with common goals 

for social, cultural, ecological, and economic sustainability. Many Tribes have 

historically managed their own forests well and in ways the Forest Service 

hopes to emulate. Tribal land management is a testament to the Tribal land 

ethic, an ethic rooted in traditions, stories, and cultures. Sacred sites, both on 

AI/AN land and within the national forests, are important facets of that land 

ethic and a common bond between us.’’ (p 14) 10

There has been great strides in improving the relationship between the US Forest 

Service and Tribal Nations. Yet, more can still be done to ensure the shared goal 

of natural resource management. The US National Forest Service (NFS) is required 

to administer the NFS for outdoor recreation, range, timber, watershed, and wildlife 

and fish purposes; to analyze the environmental impacts of decisions it authorizes; 

to protect threatened and endangered species; to conduct research; and to carry out 

a host of other responsibilities on NFS lands. In the Report to the Secretary of Agriculture dated December of 2012 regarding Policies and Procedures to Allow Tribal 

Access to Indian Sacred Sites, there were several recommendations that should be 

implemented. These include: (1) improving relationships between Tribal Nations 

and the US Forest Service by creating a ‘‘meaningful’’ Tribal Consultation policy; 

(2) expanding the definitions used in E.O. 13007 of ‘‘Indian Sacred Sites;’’ and (3) 

utilizing legal tools to protect Indian sacred sites within US Forest Lands against 

3rd party damage to sacred sites. 

Of particular importance is the expansion of the definition of sacred sites in E.O. 

13007. This definition should include a recognition of ecological management (subsistence) practices. It currently reads as so: 

30 

11Sacred Sites, E.O. 13007, Public Notice; Request for Comment. 76 Fed. Reg. 47,538 (Aug. 

5, 2011). 12 b) Coordination of plans for National Forest System lands with Indian land use planning 

and management programs for purposes of development and revision In the development and 

revision of land use plans, the Secretary of Agriculture shall coordinate land use plans for lands 

in the National Forest System with the land use planning and management programs of and 

for Indian tribes by, among other things, considering the policies of approved tribal land resource management programs. 13https://www.blm.gov/sites/blm.gov/files/uploads/MS%201780.pdf 14 43 USC 1786 (a)(2) 15 43 USC 1786 (b)(4) 16 43 USC 1786 (3)(A–E) 17 43 USC 1786 (10) states: (10) Native American uses and interests In recognition of the past 

use of the Outstanding Natural Area by Indians and Indian tribes for traditional cultural and 

religious purposes, the Secretary shall ensure access to the Outstanding Natural Area by Indians and Indian tribes for such traditional cultural and religious purposes. In implementing this 

‘‘. . .any specific, discrete, narrowly delineated location on Federal land that is 

identified by an Indian Tribe, or Indian individual determined to be an appropriately authoritative representative of an Indian religion, as sacred by virtue 

of its established religious significance to, or ceremonial use by, an Indian religion; provided that the tribe or appropriately authoritative representative of an 

Indian religion has informed the agency of the existence of such a site.’’ 11

It should read as so: 

Any specific, discrete, narrowly delineated location on Federal land that is identified by an Indian Tribe, or Indian individual determined to be an appropriately authoritative representative of an Indian religion, as sacred by virtue 

of its established religious or ecological management significance to, or ceremonial use by, an Indian religion; provided that the Tribe or appropriately authoritative representative of an Indian religion has informed the agency of the existence of such a site. 

2. Bureau of Land Management 

The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) is a significant federal agency in protecting and supporting ecological management (subsistence) practices as it manages 

federal lands in states where Tribes are the most numerous such as Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, Idaho, Nevada, 

Oregon, Washington, New Mexico, Utah, and Wyoming. BLM is given authority and 

guided by the Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA). The FLPMA 

does give some consideration to Tribal Nations such as in Title II, section 202 (43 

USC Section 1712(b)). 12 However, this provision is limited to lands within the National Forest System. Management Plans for federal land bases that have significant ecological management (subsistence) practice value should include Tribal input, 

not just those within the National Forest System. 

Management plans for lands considered Outstanding Natural Areas, even if they 

are recognized as culturally significant lands to local Tribes, are not required to include Tribal consultation or considerations. 13 For example, the Pierdas Blancas Historic Lighthouse Station is designatedas an Outstanding Natural Area. 14 Within the 

same act, it is acknowledged that the Chumash and Salian Tribes used the area traditionally [for fishing and gathering]. 15 Yet, they are not required to be consulted 

in the management plans surrounding that area. FLMPA states: 

‘‘The management plan shall be developed in consultation with appropriate Federal, State, and local government agencies, with full public participation, and 

the contents shall include— 

(E) cultural resources management strategies for the Outstanding Natural 

Area, prepared in consultation with appropriate departments of the State of 

California, with emphasis on the preservation of the resources of the Outstanding Natural Area and the interpretive, education, and long-term scientific 

uses of the resources, giving priority to the enforcement of the Archaeological 

Resources Protection Act of 1979 (16 U.S.C. 470aa et seq.)’’ 16

This intentional exclusion of Tribal input from significant areas that retain or are 

of importance to ecological management (subsistence practices) should, at the very 

least, include Tribal input into how these areas are managed. There is a recognition 

of Tribal significance by giving the land managers the ability to close the park for 

religious or ceremonial purposes, but does NOT give input into management plans 

of these lands, much less, give recognition of or ability to practice ecological management (subsistence) practices on these lands. 17

31 

subsection, the Secretary, upon the request of an Indian tribe or Indian religious community, 

shall temporarily close to the general public use of one or more specific portions of the Outstanding Natural Area in order to protect the privacy of traditional cultural and religious activities in such areas by the Indian tribe or Indian religious community. Any such closure shall 

be made to affect the smallest practicable area for the minimum period necessary for such purposes. Such access shall be consistent with the purpose and intent of Public Law 95–341 (42 

U.S.C. 1996 et seq.; commonly referred to as the ‘‘American Indian Religious Freedom Act’’). 18 Bureau of Land Management Manual. Rel. N0. 1–1780 (7) 19 Bureau of Land Management Manual. Rel. N0. 1–1780 (7) 20 Bureau of Land Management Manual. Rel. N0. 1–1780 defines as, ‘‘Traditional cultural 

property (TCP): A phrase often used in reference to a ‘‘property of traditional religious and cultural importance’’ as defined in the NHPA, which are identified by Indian tribes. The property 

derives significance from traditional values associated with it by a social and/or cultural group 

such as an Indian tribe or local community. It commonly refers to a culturally sensitive area 

that may qualify for the NRHP if it meets the criteria and criteria of exceptions at 36 CFR 60.4. 

See National Register Bulletin 38.’’ (p 36). 21 National Park Service. Management Policies: The Guide to Managing the Park Service System. 2006 

Additionally, BLM has broad authority to enter into contracting agreements with 

Tribal Nations. 18 In some instances, the agreements entered into with Tribal Nations for management of culturally significant land bases resulted in agreements 

that failed to compensate Tribal Nations for beneficial land management practices 

because some subsistence practices like hunting and gathering are not recognized 

as ecological management. The end result was that Tribal Nations were burdened 

with executing a contract that did not adequately cover the cost of the contract. 

BLM contracts with Tribal Nations should include recognition as subsistence practices as beneficial ecological management with costs covered to execute those activities within the Tribal/BLM contract. 

Lastly, BLM has a robust Tribal Consultation policy that still can be improved 

to recognize ecological management (subsistence) practices. Native American Cultural and Religious significant places are mentioned throughout the internal BLM 

consultation policy. 19 It should be recognized that this term includes traditional ecological management (subsistence) practices. 20

3. National Park Service 

Like other agencies, the National Park Service has a robust tribal consultation 

policy. Although, much like other agencies the ability to respond and work with 

Tribal communities with significant ties to lands with the National Park service 

charge is left to the discretion on the National Park service director/manager of a 

particular park. This discretion can be frustrating to Tribes if the relationship with 

the National Park Service director/manager is not cordial. The National Park Service director/manager is NOT required to allow for ecological management (subsistence) practices. They are only directed to follow National Park Service Policy which 

reads as such: 

‘‘With regard to consumptive use of park resources, current NPS policy is reflected in regulations published at 36 CFR 2.1 and 36 CFR Part 13. These regulations allow superintendents to designate certain fruits, berries, nuts, or unoccupied seashells that may be gathered by hand for personal use or consumption 

if it will not adversely affect park wildlife, the reproductive potential of a plant 

species, or otherwise adversely affect park resources. The regulations do not authorize the taking, use, or possession of fish, wildlife, or plants for ceremonial 

or religious purposes, except where specifically authorized by federal statute or 

treaty rights or where hunting, trapping, or fishing are otherwise allowed.’’ 21

Because many ecological management (subsistence) practices are not specifically 

recognized by federal statute or treaty rights, many ecological management (subsistence) practices are disallowed and not practiced. It would be wise for federal legislatures to recognize ecological management (subsistence) practices as necessary environmental management tools even within Federal lands. 

4. Bureau of Ocean and Energy Management 

The Bureau of Ocean and Energy Management (BOEM) has an incredible impact 

on ecological management (subsistence) practices on ocean resources. Historically, 

Tribal communities not only in coastal regions, but even in mid-continent of North 

America, depended on ocean resources for ceremonial, diet, and cultural patrimony. 

In more recent times, the rapid change in ocean and sea conditions and ocean resources is extremely concerning. Tribal people see important subsistence resources 

like clams, oysters, abalone, and seaweed, to name a few, depleting at unconscionable rates. Because these resources play an important role in ecological balance, 

32 

22See USDA Office of Tribal Relations and USDA Forest Service. ‘‘Report to the Secretary 

of Agriculture: USDA Policies and Procedures Review and Recommendations Indian Sacred 

Sites.’’ (Dec 2012) 23 Read more: Native American Rights—Hunting And Fishing Rights—Court, Tribes, Tribe, 

and Treaties—JRank Articles http://law.jrank.org/pages/8750/Native-American-Rights-Hunting-Fishing-Rights.html#ixzz5IhIKR38Z 24 US Supreme Court Docket No. 17–532 25 (7 U.S 7 U.S.C. ch. 94, 7 U.S.C. § 6501 et seq.) and Section 5022 of the USDA–AMS Organic Handbook (can be found at: https://www.ams.usda.gov/rules-regulations/organic/handbook/5022) 

Tribal Nations have been struggling to be recognized as stewards of these resources, 

participate in the management of these resources, and practice ecological management to ensure the continuation of these resources for future generations. 

BOEM’s Tribal Consultation policy is not as robust or articulated as other federal 

agencies. While it is subject to federal law, and recognized as a government-to-government relationship with Tribes, BOEM does not spell out how federal law and the 

government-to-government relationship is reflected in agency action, policy, and 

practice. Articulating a Tribal Consultation policy would help Tribal stakeholders 

understand where and how to influence BOEM agency decisionmaking in order to 

advocate for the practice ecological management (subsistence) practices. 

Additionally, many of the ocean resources that are of importance to Tribal communities are within BOEM management scope. A full understanding of what ocean 

resources are of concern should be explored through a Tribal/BOEM relationship exploration process much like the US Forest Service did with sacred sites. 22 Many 

Tribal Nation concerns over ocean resources could be documented and explored, but 

this process may also provide valuable information and data about ocean resources 

to BOEM that have yet to be considered or documented. 

5. US Fish and Wildlife Service 

The US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) has an important mechanism for including Tribal participation in ecological management (subsistence) practices 

through the State and Tribal Wildlife Grants Program. This program should continue to be supported, but should also be considered for expansion to include more 

Tribes. USFWS should also consider providing technical assistance webinars to increase Tribal participation by Tribes who do not normally participate. 

Recognition of Indigenous Ecological Management (Subsistence) Practices 

1. Fishing 

Fishing is an important practice that is vital to many Tribal communities, particularly those along the coastal areas. However, I am honored to be sitting on the 

panel with communities who represent these communities and can articulate the 

issues around subsistence fishing more adequately than I can. I will defer my comments to them. 772. Hunting and Gathering 

It has long been recognized that Tribal communities have treaty rights that extend beyond reservation borders. The phrase ‘‘usual and accustomed places’’ has 

been interrupted to include off-reservations, which is critical to Tribal Nations actively practicing Tribal ecological management (subsistence). The ability to exercise 

Treaty rights off-reservation interpretation should continue to be upheld. In Minnesota v. Mille Lacs Band of Chippewa Indians, 526 U.S. 172, 119 S. Ct. 1187, 143 

L. Ed. 2d 270 (1999), the US Supreme Court ruled in favor of the Chippewa Indians’ 

right to fish and hunt in northern Minnesota without state regulation. The ruling 

marked a final victory for the Tribe in its long fight to assert its treaty rights and 

to defend its cultural traditions. 23 Presently, the US Supreme Court has a similar 

case listed on its docket, Herrera v. Wyoming. 24 Tribal Nations throughout the 

country are watching anxiously for this court case to be adjudicated with the hopes 

that continued recognition of ecological management (subsistence) practices will be 

honored even in ‘‘usual and accustomed’’ places off reservation. The recognition of 

these ecological management (subsistence) practices will support the continuation of 

ecological tools that will keep our environments healthy. 

Organic Food Production Act—Wild Gathering Provision 

The Organic Foods Production Act (OFPA) and subsequent USDA regulations has 

a provision for gathering of wild crops. 25 Unfortunately, within this act there is NO 

recognition of Tribal Nations, communities, or people. Authorizing legislation, 

OFPA, and the subsequent USDA–AMS regulations specify that wild crop harvesting must ‘‘support the long-term viability of the habitat.’’ However, organic crops 

like wild crops are certified organic bythird party certifiers. There is inconsistent enforcement of what it means to ‘‘support the long-term viability of habitat.’’ FurtherVerDate Mar 15 2010 11:12 Dec 27, 2018 Jkt 033836 PO 00000 Frm 00036 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 S:\DOCS\33836.TXT JACK
33 

26SEC. 4033. SERVICE OF TRADITIONAL FOODS IN PUBLIC FACILITIES. (a) PURPOSES.—The purposes of this section are—(1) to provide access to traditional foods in food service programs; (2) to encourage increased consumption of traditional foods to decrease health disparities among Indians, particularly Alaska Natives; and (3) to provide alternative food options 

for food service programs. (5) TRADITIONAL FOOD.—(A) IN GENERAL.-The term ‘‘traditional 

food’’ means food that has traditionally been prepared and consumed by an Indian tribe. (B) INCLUSIONS.—The term ‘‘traditional food’’ includes—(i) wild game meat; (ii) fish; (iii) seafood; (iv) 

marine mammals; (v) plants; and (vi) berries. (c) PROGRAM.-The Secretary and the Commissioner shall allow the donation to and serving of traditional food through food service programs 

at public facilities and nonprofit facilities, including facilities operated by Indian tribes and facilities operated by tribal organizations, that primarily serve Indians if the operator of the food 

service program—(1) ensures that the food is received whole, gutted, gilled, as quarters, or as 

a roast, without further processing; (2) makes a reasonable determination that—(A) the animal 

was not diseased; (B) the food was butchered, dressed, transported, and stored to prevent contamination, undesirable microbial growth, or deterioration; and (C) the food will not cause a significant health hazard or potential for human illness; (3) carries out any further preparation 

or processing of the food at a different time or in a different space from the preparation or procContinued 

more, without the recognition of Tribal Nations, communities, and people and their 

relationship to some of these wild crops, some Tribal Nations are being purged of 

important traditional resources. 

While many Tribes harvest and gather wild crops consistent with traditional ecological management practice that may include techniques, timing, and processes 

that ensure its propagation, non-tribal harvesting of the same crop for commercial 

purposes may not follow the same techniques, timing, and processes leaving the 

crops vulnerable for over-harvesting, and much worse, extinction. Abalone and seaweed are only two examples of over-harvesting. Had there been some recognition of 

the importance of these wild crops to Tribal Nations and Tribal Nations participated 

in the management of these crops, perhaps over-harvesting could have been slowed 

or even prevented. Commercialization of wild foods, especially those important to 

Tribal Nations, should be fully explored by USDA–AMS and the USDA Organic Program before permissive harvesting of wild crops is allowed for sale under the USDA 

Organic label. 

We see a commercialization of culturally important foods typically gathered by Indigenous people. These foods, once relegated as a ‘‘commodity,’’ become over-harvested significantly with no regional management systems in place. Indigenous people should be the managers of their culturally important foods like leeks, wild onions, seaweed, and maple sugar, among others. At the very least, Tribal Nations 

should be a stakeholder that develops management plans for these resources. 

1. Seaweed in California 

Of immediate concern is the over-harvesting of seaweed along the coasts of California. Seaweed has been an important product in ecological management (subsistence) lifestyles for thousands of years for California communities along the coast 

and as far in-land to Tribes in Nevada. Recently, seaweed has been deemed a ‘‘super 

food’’’ by American food culture. As a result, seaweed has been harvested by nonTribal commercial harvesters that is resulting in shortages for Tribal Nations who 

follow traditionally timed seaweed gathering. Not only is there a concern for future 

seaweed harvests, but there is a concern for diet shortages of California Tribal people who rely on this source of food during winter months. BOEM should create a 

Tribal Resource Management Plan specifically for seaweed along the coast of California to ensure that this resource is not over harvested, Tribal communities have 

first priority, and that this resource is healthy for future generations. 

Because of the lack of clarity between federal authority and Tribal recognition 

around ocean resource management, states have taken a large role in making determinations about ocean resources. There are times when practicing ecological management (subsistence) may be adverse to economic interests within a state, which 

can create a polarized environment for Tribes to advocate for ecological management 

(subsistence) practice. Federal recognition of the importance of ecological management (subsistence) practice would give a new perspective in environmental management that is greatly needed, particularly in seaweed commercialization. 

Supportive Legislation that should continue to be protected 

There are current pieces of legislation that serve as a solid beginning for the protection of ecological management (subsistence) practices. These pieces of legislation 

should continue to be supported. These are: 

• The Agricultural Act of 2014 (Farm Bill) Section 4033 the Service of Traditional 

Foods in Public facilities 26

34 

essing of other food for the applicable program to prevent cross-contamination; (4) cleans and 

sanitizes food-contact surfaces of equipment and utensils after processing the traditional food; 

(5) labels donated traditional food with the name of the food; (6) stores the traditional food separately from other food for the applicable program, including through storage in a separate freezer or refrigerator or in a separate compartment or shelf in the freezer or refrigerator; (7) follows 

Federal, State, local, county, tribal, or other non-Federal law regarding the safe preparation and 

service of food in public or nonprofit facilities; and (8) follows other such criteria as established 

by the Secretary and Commissioner. 27 E.O. 13007, 61 Fed. Reg. 26771 (May 24, 1996). E.O. 13007 refers to ‘‘Indian Sacred Sites.’’ 

In this report we generally use the term ‘‘American Indian/Alaska Native’’ as a broadly inclusive 

term to refer to American Indians, Alaska Natives, First Nations, First Peoples, Native Americans, and other indigenous people. E.O. 13007 references Executive Memorandum of April 29, 

1994, ‘‘Government-to-Government Relations with Native American Tribal Governments,’’ which 

requires federal executive agencies to consult with Tribes on a Government-to-Government basis 

to the greatest extent practicable and to the extent permitted by law on actions that affect Federally Recognized Tribal Governments. National Historic Preservation Act, 16 U.S.C. § 470 et 

seq. (1966), Section 101(d)(6)(B). 28 As used in Executive Order 13007, ‘‘. . .any specific, discrete, narrowly delineated location 

on Federal land that is identified by an Indian Tribe, or Indian individual determined to be an 

appropriately authoritative representative of an Indian religion, as sacred by virtue of its established religious significance to, or ceremonial use by, an Indian religion; provided that the Tribe 

However, there should be a change in the language under Section 4033(c)(7) 

It currently reads: 

(7) follows Federal, State, local, county, tribal, or other non-Federal law regarding the safe preparation and service of food in public or nonprofit facilities; and 

But this should read: 

(7) follows Federal, State, local, county, and tribal law regarding the safe preparation and service of food in public or nonprofit facilities; and 

• (Proposed provision in current Farm Bill Discussions) Title VIII—Forestry Sec. 

8624—Good Neighbor Authority 

Includes Tribes as eligible under the Good Neighbor Authority; and Adds trust 

land, restricted fee, land held for a Tribe’s benefit, fee land, Section 17 corporation 

owned land, and an Alaska Native Village Corporation. 

• The Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 (Pub.L. 110–234) (2008 FARM 

BILL PROVISIONS)— 

Previous Farm Bill Provisions, included a section that allowed for ecological management (subsistence) practices. It said: 

SEC. 8105. FOREST PRODUCTS FOR TRADITIONAL AND CULTURAL PURPOSES.(a) In General- Notwithstanding section 14 of the National Forest Management Act of 1976 (16 U.S.C. 472a), the Secretary may provide free of charge 

to Indian Tribes any trees, portions of trees, or forest products from National 

Forest System land for traditional and cultural purposes. 

(b) Prohibition- Trees, portions of trees, or forest products provided under subsection (a) may not be used for commercial purposes. 

This should be included and supported in future versions of the farm bill. 

Recommendations 

1) Include Tribal Nations in Land Management Planning on Federally held lands 

While we do have laws and policies that protect sacred sites and protect historic 

places significant to the US Nation such Executive order 13007 and the National 

Historic Preservation Act (NHPA), 27 these laws are often used to designate protections to specific land sites. Protections should and need to extend to the ecological 

management (subsistence) activities that take place on these lands. Protecting a 

parcel or historic land base without the ecological management (subsistence) activities historically used to maintain its health is analogous to watching a house deteriorate from non-use. 

Additionally, the FLMPA gives authority to land managers to allow closure of federal lands for cultural and ceremonial purposes, yet there is NO inclusion of Tribal 

Nations in the creation of the land management plans of these same areas. Tribal 

Nations should be included in the creation of land management plans of the places 

that have been and continue to be closed for the cultural and ceremonial purposes. 

In the alternative, ecological management (subsistence) practices should be included 

in the definition of cultural and ceremonial purposes stated in Executive Order 

13007. 28

35 

or appropriately authoritative representative of an Indian religion has informed the agency of 

the existence of such a site.’’ 29 ‘‘Multiple-Use Sustained-Yield Act of 1960.’’ Wikipedia, Wikimedia Foundation, 19 June 

2018, en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiple-UselSustained-yieldlActlofl1960. 30The Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) of 1972 (Public Law 92–463) 

2) Provide a budget within USDA to create Tribal Land Resource Management 

Plans 

There are several federal agencies, the US Forest Service and Bureau of Land 

Management that include Tribal Resource Management Plans for consideration and 

implementation within Federal lands. Typically, these Tribal Resource Management 

Plans are developed within the Department Interior Bureau of Indian Affairs. However, too few resources are allocated to developing these plans and are a limited to 

certain land designations. Congress should consider allocating more funding to developing Tribal Resource Management Plans and expanding the reach of these plans 

to include all Tribal lands, regardless of designation if the Tribe so chooses. 

3) Provide guidance to National Forest managers to support subsistence practices 

The Multiple Use—Sustained Yield Act of 1960 (or MUSYA) (Public Law 86–517) 

is a federal law passed by the United States Congress on June 12, 1960. This law 

authorizes and directs the Secretary of Agriculture to develop and administer the 

renewable resources of timber, range, water, recreation and wildlife on the national 

forests for multiple use and sustained yield of the products and services. This is the 

first law to have the five major uses of national forests contained in one law equally, 

with no use greater than any other. 29 The Multiple-Use Sustained-Yield Act of 1960 

(MUSYA), does not currently include consideration of sacred sites and traditional 

subsistence practices, and states ‘‘It is the policy of the Congress that the national 

forests are established and shall be administered for outdoor recreation, range, timber, watershed, and wildlife and fish purposes.’’ 16 U.S.C.§ § 528 (1960). This law 

makes it harder for forest land managers to give weight to Indigenous subsistence 

practices within those federal lands. Tribal Traditional subsistence practices should 

be included as a sixth major use in determining multiple use and sustained yield 

of the products and services. 

4) Ensure Co-management agreements duly compensate Tribal communities for 

their participation 

Federal agencies have broad power to contract with Tribal communities, whether 

through grants, co-management agreements, memorandums of understanding, costshare agreements, Wyden agreements, participating agreements and stewardship 

agreements. These agreements should include a recognition of the important of ecological management through subsistence practices. Tribes should be adequately compensated for management of ecological management through subsistence practices. 

Far too often, we have seen agreements between federal agencies and Tribal Nations inadequately compensate Tribes for participation and management which creates a hardship on Tribal Nations to fully manage these contracts. Not only will 

compensation for ecological management through subsistence recognize subsistence 

practices as a vital practice, it will ensure that more funding is directed toward 

Tribal execution of any agreement between Tribal Nations and federal agencies. 

5) Increase Indigenous Representation on Advisory Boards 

Many agencies have advisory boards authorized under the Federal Committee Advisory Act. 30 These advisory boards are important bodies that allow non-federal 

stakeholder participation. Few of these boards ever include Tribal Nation citizenship. Agencies should increase outreach to Tribal Nations to include Tribal citizenship. Tribal citizenship participation should be included (but not limited to) the following advisory boards: 

• Rural Schools Resource Act Advisory Committee 

• Regional Recreational Advisory Committees (BLM) 

• Regional Advisory Boards for the Bureau of Land Management 

• National Organic Standards Board 

• Hunting and Shooting Sports Conservation Council(FWS) 

• Sport Fishing and Boating Council (FWS) 

• Alaska Regional Subsistence Councils (These same councils should be created 

for the lower 48 and Hawaii) 

• National Academies on Committee on Off-Science and Assessment 

• The National Park Service Advisory Board (because it’s site specific, Tribal Nations surrounding the sites should be included) 

36 

6) Change the definition of ‘‘sacred sites’’ Executive Order 13007 to include lands 

significant to ecological management (subsistence) practices. 

The current definition of sacred sites in E.O. 13007 reads, ‘‘Any specific, discrete, 

narrowly delineated location on Federal land that is identified by an Indian Tribe, 

or Indian individual determined to be an appropriately authoritative representative 

of an Indian religion, as sacred by virtue of its established religious significance to, 

or ceremonial use by, an Indian religion; provided that the Tribe or appropriately 

authoritative representative of an Indian religion has informed the agency of the existence of such a site. 

E.O. 13007 should be changed to read as follows: 

Any specific, discrete, narrowly delineated location on Federal land that is identified by an Indian Tribe, or Indian individual determined to be an appropriately authoritative representative of an Indian religion, as sacred by virtue of its established 

religious or ecological management significance to, or ceremonial use by, an Indian 

religion; provided that the Tribe or appropriately authoritative representative of an 

Indian religion has informed the agency of the existence of such a site. 

Conclusion 

Thank you for allowing me time to address the committee and to advocate for the 

recognition of Indigenous ecological management (subsistence) practices. There are 

increasing pressures on Tribal Nations economically and socially, yet subsistence 

practice is one of the few tools we have in monitoring environmental changes like 

climate change and resource depletion. Rather than viewing these practices as simplistic activities such as ‘‘just food gathering,’’ we need to recognize these practices 

for the ecological management practices that have created and ensured the health 

of some of our country’s greatest environmental treasures. The continued health our 

country’s lands and Tribal Nations is inextricably tied. To ensure their continued 

existence, it’s time to listen, recognize, acknowledge, and protect the traditional food 

systems of Tribal Nations and the long-standing practices that support those systems. 

Na’cha, 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. 

We will begin with our five minute rounds of questioning. I 

would like to start with Dr. Hardin. 

The Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act sets forth 

a broad and sweeping example of Federal management and oversight of subsistence activities specific to the needs and complexities 

in your State of Alaska. 

Can you highlight some of the effective management approaches 

developed pursuant to that law which might be helpful in protecting and promoting subsistence lifestyles and practices in tribal 

communities throughout the rest of the Country? 

Dr. HARDIN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for that question. 

I think we are very fortunate in Alaska to have the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act which does prioritize subsistence on Federal public lands. I think one of the keys to the success of that program is the bottom-up approach built into the law 

and implemented through the Federal program. 

In that process, the drivers of the program and the regulations 

that guide the program are the users themselves. The Federal Subsistence Board does not generate regulations and initiate regulatory changes. Those are all driven from the local level, from local 

resource managers. 

Similarly, recommendations to the board are directly from the 

local users themselves, with the board’s understanding that people 

at the local level are really the ones who have the most knowledge 

about the resource and the conditions affecting the resources. 

I think that process the Federal program has implemented and 

continues to develop over time is one that has broad applicability. 

37 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Doctor. 

Ms. Peltola, the Federal Subsistence Management Program is designed to elicit input on the subsistence use of fish and wildlife 

within Alaska. The program includes five Federal agencies, the 

Federal Subsistence Board, ten regional advisory councils on subsistence issues and numerous partnerships from the State of Alaska as well as other stakeholders. 

In your written testimony, you referenced some of the inefficiencies and concern about the lack of representation of Native subsistence users on the board. To address that piece in regard to having 

Alaska Natives who are subsistence users, talk about how they 

should be incorporated on the board and, in general, whether you 

think this type of stakeholder board is an appropriate method for 

managing or overseeing subsistence use? 

Ms. PELTOLA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I do think this type of board is effective for overseeing management of subsistence. I do believe, though, the board does not have 

parity among its voting members. There are five agency regional 

department heads, one from the Fish and Wildlife Service, one 

from the Bureau of Indian Affairs, one from Parks, and one from 

BLM. 

Then there are three public members, one of whom is the Chair 

who does not have an active voting membership. In effect, there 

are two public members. In order for them to get on the Federal 

Subsistence Board, they have to have an in-depth knowledge of 

subsistence activities as well as regulations. 

That same standard is not applied to the agency representative 

and the agency voting members, many of whom are very new to 

Alaska and do not stay in their posts longer than three to five 

years. Many of them also have alternates who sit in for them when 

they cannot make the meeting. 

In my opinion, the way to make the Federal Subsistence Board 

more effective for actual subsistence users is to have at least as 

many public members as there are agency representatives. In my 

opinion, preferably, there would be one person from every region of 

the State. I see Alaska as having six different, distinct regions. 

Having six public members or even five public members or 

maybe five public members, the chairman and then five agency 

members, I think would provide more equality, effectiveness and 

efficiency. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. 

Chairman Brown, in regard to the wild horse and burro management, BLM indicated that roughly their number for wild horses 

and burros on the 26.9 million acres of BLM-managed lands, their 

recommended management numbers would be to have about 26,000 

to 27,000 animals but they estimate they have a population of 

83,000 at this point. 

Talk to me about some of the effects and recommendations you 

have in regard to those numbers. 

Mr. BROWN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Those numbers seem likely. On the Wind River Reservation in 

2012, we did a couple of studies where we saw over 2,000 animals. 

It is widely known that wild horses and feral horses breed at the 

38 

rate of 20 percent per year. Every five years, the herd of horses 

doubles in size. 

In 2012, we did the study and are estimating, through science 

and observations, the horses on the reservation number between 

6,000 and 8,000 animals. A lot of what is happening on the reservation is we are surrounded by many public lands and feral 

horses on those public lands often migrate onto the reservation. 

The numbers we are seeing on the reservation still find their way 

to us. They are decimating our grasslands, displacing our elk, and 

displacing our mule deer, making it more difficult for tribal members to rely on traditional subsistence. 

We recommend that money be diverted to addressing the removal of wild horses as well as returning the landscape to its 

former state and to addressing Federal legislation that creates a 

suppressed marketplace for horses and encourages or makes it 

easier for domestic horses to be abandoned on public or reservation 

lands. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. 

Senator Udall. 

Senator UDALL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

It is no secret the Trump Administration does not believe in climate change but Indian Country does not have the luxury of putting its head in the sand. In Hawaii, for example, sea level rise, 

salt water intrusion and long periods of drought threaten the cultivation of taro and other traditional crops. 

Communities across Indian Country are fighting drought, 

wildfires, changing habitats, decreased biodiversity and the list 

goes on and on and on. 

Dr. Hardin, what is the Office of Subsistence Management doing 

to make sure the Federal Government is providing Alaska Native 

villages and Indian Tribes with the tools to address climate change 

impacts to subsistence? 

Dr. HARDIN. Thank you, Senator. 

The Office of Subsistence Management is a mere advisor to the 

Federal Subsistence Board and regional advisory councils. First of 

all, I would emphasize that. However, we work very closely with 

all of the local users. 

One of the very valuable methods and approaches we have is we 

coordinate and manage a program called the Fisheries Resource 

Monitoring Program. Through that program, we find, through a 

competitive proposal process, collaborative fisheries research 

throughout the State of Alaska that includes research to look at 

the stock status and trends of fish stocks, traditional ecological 

knowledge studies to better understand what is happening in communities and the important relationships between these resources 

and local communities and harvest monitoring. 

Through these research projects, we track the status of the available stocks. In all of our analyses, we also utilize the best available 

data that we have to analyze what is causing declines in important 

subsistence resources. We will continue to do so as the information 

becomes available. 

Of course traditional ecological knowledge is really key to understanding those over time. 

39 

Senator UDALL. As we have heard from each of the tribal witnesses today, subsistence practices are vital to Native communities 

across the Country. However, Dr. Hardin, it is my understanding 

the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service primarily supports tribal subsistence through the Office of Subsistence Management which, in 

turn, supports the Federal Subsistence Management Program established to serve rural and tribal Alaskan residents. 

Does the Fish and Wildlife Service support tribal subsistence 

practices in the lower 48 and should it? 

Dr. HARDIN. Thank you, Senator. 

Again, I work at the Office of Subsistence Management. Our 

charge is to implement Title VIII of ANILCA. Although we are administratively housed in the Fish and Wildlife Service, we are 

mandated to serve all of the agencies represented on the Federal 

Subsistence Board, as well as the public members. 

I am really not able to speak to the individual agency actions in 

the lower 48. 

Senator UDALL. Maybe you can help me and the record on that, 

people in their department answering that question a little more 

thoroughly? 

Dr. HARDIN. Absolutely, sir. 

Senator UDALL. Thank you. 

Chairman Brown and Ms. Romero-Briones, is the Federal Government, the Department of the Interior, and the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service providing enough resources to support tribal subsistence practices? 

Mr. BROWN. Thank you, Senator. 

I think the Federal Government could do more to promote tribal 

traditional subsistence practices. I think part of it begins with consulting with tribes. Many times Federal agencies develop policies 

regarding wildlife management or ecosystem management without 

consultation with tribes. 

I think tribal traditional knowledge is key in a lot of these discussions. Tribes have extensive knowledge on how their environment has operated in order to promote tribal traditional subsistence. 

I think consulting with tribes is the first step and devoting more 

resources is another big step. 

Senator UDALL. Director Romero-Briones. 

Ms. ROMERO-BRIONES. Thank you, Senator. 

I would echo Chairman Brown’s comments. At First Nations Development Institute, we also have a grant program that was created largely to fill the hole that the Federal agencies have in Indian Country. 

We have awarded over 307 grants to food and agriculture 

projects. Three-fourths of those are to support subsistence and traditional lifestyles. That pales to the $49 million ask that we are not 

able to fulfill. 

There is definitely a need for more financial resources to support 

not only communities trying to document their practices, but also 

to create networks within Federal agencies to actually get the conversations and a seat at the table for the protection of these practices. 

Senator UDALL. Thank you very much. 

40 

The CHAIRMAN. Senator Murkowski. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mary, thank you again for coming all the way as you have. 

Mr. Chairman, if I was really thinking, I would have brought the 

jar of fish that Mary Sattler Peltola provided me in my office today 

because that would have given us all the get up and go you would 

need and reminded us all of the significance of the subsistence fishing that goes on. I understand you just had an opener out there 

in the YK area and people were happy to get out on the water. 

I know when we talk about the agreement we have between the 

Kuskokwim Inter-Tribal Fish Commission and the Department of 

the Interior, it is probably best described as a cooperative agreement. 

Can you help educate me on the difference between a cooperative 

agreement and co-management and the opportunities to the region 

if the Commission was involved in a co-management agreement as 

you described with this proposed pilot you mentioned earlier in 

your opening statement? 

Ms. PELTOLA. Thank you, Senator Murkowski. 

We have had two openings. Just for perspective, when I was 

growing up, subsistence fishing was unrestricted. We could go out 

any time we wanted as long as it was not in that buffer right before the commercial opening. We no longer have a commercial fishery for any of the species of salmon on our river. 

In past years, the average harvest was about 96,000 Chinook 

salmon. Last year and this year, we estimate that the harvest will 

be around 16,000. The highest amount of harvest was 110,000 Chinook salmon. We are all the way down to 16,000. That has created 

a lot of anxiety and unhappiness. 

The Fish Commission has done a very good job, if I can say so, 

in helping explain the issue of there being a lack of Chinook statewide and that our river is not the only river that is experiencing 

restrictions. Some rivers are experiencing full closure. 

My belief is we should not be called to join the table and become 

managers only in times of crisis when things are bad. My preference is that we be asked to participate and be managers even in 

times of abundance with all our species. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. Especially in times of abundance so you 

can ensure that abundance continues, that sustainability. 

Ms. PELTOLA. Sustainability. That is my hope, that the InterTribal Fish Commission can be a manager all the time, not just 

when we are facing this grim reality. 

Cooperative management, cooperative agreements are usually 

discretionary partnerships. Those are not legally binding. The 

Kuskokwim Inter-Tribal Fish Commission is asking for a co-management structure where there is a specific legal basis, such as a 

treaty or statute, in this case, which would require the delegation 

of some aspect of Federal decision-making authority to tribes, in 

this case, specifically the 33 tribes that live along the Kuskokwim 

River. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. It is that legal binding aspect of this that 

makes the difference in ensuring there really is this seat at the 

table, this level of participation. 

41 

With regard to your suggestion that you move OSM out from 

Fish and Wildlife so that it can operate independently, making 

sure OSM is free from levels of conflict is important, I think. Are 

there functions of the Federal Subsistence Board and OSM that 

could perhaps be compacted or contracted right away? 

Ms. PELTOLA. I am not 100 percent sure but I do believe there 

are opportunities to compact and contract. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. Is that something we are looking to explore? 

Ms. PELTOLA. Yes, absolutely. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. Do we need to do more on this end to encourage our agencies, the Federal Subsistence Board and OSM, to 

work more directly with those of you involved on the ground to pursue something like that? 

Ms. PELTOLA. We have a very good relationship with the Office 

of Subsistence Management. In my opinion, there is a difference 

within the culture of OSM and the culture of Fish and Wildlife. 

In my opinion, there is a very strong desire for the Fish and 

Wildlife Service to work in concert or collaboration with great deference to the State of Alaska which does not have a rural subsistence priority. 

OSM’s mission, the way I have seen it over the last two years, 

is they are very focused on making sure we are in compliance with 

ANILCA, which I have not seen borne out at the refuge level. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. All I know is that when I am out there on 

the river, when I am out there in the fish camps, people are not 

talking about compliance with some Federal laws. They are wondering how they are going to be able to feed their families. 

Ms. PELTOLA. Yes. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. And fair allocation of a fishery, not just for 

the resource that is there today, but going to be there next summer, the summer thereafter and thereafter. 

Ms. PELTOLA. That is exactly right, Senator. I have not met anyone whose primary interest is jurisdictional boundaries or jurisdictional oversight. 

Right now, on our river, we have a very bifurcated system. On 

the 12th when we had a chance to fish, the whole river, State and 

Federal waters, were open. On the 16th, only Federal waters were 

open. On the 18th, only State waters were open. 

This is very confusing when you hear an announcement that 

there is a 24-hour chance to fish. You do not know if that is in 

State or Federal waters. I believe the Fish Commission can really 

address that issue. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. The fish do not care whether it is Federal 

or State. 

Mr. Chairman, thank you so much. 

Thank you for being here. 

Senator UDALL. [Presiding.] Thank you. 

Senator Smith. 

42 

STATEMENT OF HON. TINA SMITH, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM MINNESOTA 

Senator SMITH. Thank you, Vice Chairman Udall. 

To our panelists, thank you all so much for being here today. It 

is very interesting to have this conversation. 

Senator Murkowski, if I had been thinking, I would have brought 

wild rice and walleye to this hearing. We could have lunch which 

would have been great. 

As I listened to this conversation about subsistence and traditional practices, I think a lot about the work we are in the middle 

of right now with the farm bill. With Senator Heitkamp and I serving on both the Indian Affairs Committee as well as on the Agriculture Committee, I think we are the two who have overlap on 

these committees. 

I have been looking for areas where the opportunities and 

synergies are with those two committees. In Minnesota, I created 

a farm bill working group to bring together the issues and views 

from farmers in rural communities and also the tribes, along with 

those who care a lot about energy issues, nutrition and conservation. 

That was extremely helpful to be able to bring all those views to 

the discussion about the farm bill. Certainly the farm bill touches 

the lives of every single American and certainly the lives of everyone who lives in tribal communities. 

In the farm bill, we were able to include some of the issues 

brought forth as being important. We did this with the help of Senator Hoeven, Senator Udall and Senator Heitkamp, including strategies to help minority and disadvantaged farmers. 

In Minnesota, that often includes helping Native farmers who 

are just getting going and also looking at issues related to expanding markets. In Minnesota, that is extending wild rice markets but 

I am sure it runs the gamut all across the Country. There is also 

the issue of especially fighting tribal food fraud which is a problem. 

One thing that came up quite a bit with the Native Farm Bill 

Coalition was recommending we look at and understand how to do 

a better job of expanding consultation with tribes on conservation 

issues. I would like to touch on that a bit because it seems to relate 

a lot to your comments today. 

I want to go to Ms. Romero-Briones for this, but I would be interested in hearing everyone’s comments. 

What should the Federal Government be doing to ensure that 

tribes have the appropriate jurisdiction under the Natural Resources Conservation Service and that Indian producers can engage 

in the kind of conservation work they desire that aligns with traditional practices? What can we be doing better there? 

Ms. ROMERO-BRIONES. Thank you for the question. 

First, there is an underlying issue about what subsistence means 

both to lawmakers and those working in agriculture. Often they 

are seen as separate issues. Like many of the panelists said today 

subsistence is actually ecological management and should be considered forms of sustainable agriculture which would put it in the 

purview of the farm bill. 

With the conservation programs, particularly with NRCS, one of 

the limitations is the recognition of groups of tribal farmers and 

43 

tribal communities as a collective of farmers as opposed to individual farmers with specified farm lands, which is one of the limitations to participating in many of the conservation programs. 

I think there are several provisions the Native Farm Bill Coalition has put forward like those in EQUIP that recognize a collection of farmers as opposed to single farmers. Those are great starts 

in increasing tribal participation in these programs. That is a wonderful insight. 

Thank you. 

Senator SMITH. That is great. Does anyone else wish to comment 

on that? 

Mr. BROWN. Thank you, Senator. 

The farm bill serves as an excellent example of how valuable 

tribal input is. I think tribes are well prepared and well equipped 

to be able to have a common and comprehensive outlook on the 

things the farm bill addresses. 

For example, the tribes on the Wind River own minerals, are 

stewards of the lands, and also owners of the lands. When we do 

mineral extraction, we also have to be aware of environmental protections. 

We have Native ranchers with whom we lease lands but also 

have wildlife that is traditional and which we want to protect. Native tribes have been able for centuries to reconcile those different 

viewpoints among themselves. 

I think that viewpoint is valuable when you are crafting such a 

massive bill like the farm bill. I appreciate your outreach to the 

tribes through the Native Farm Bill Coalition in which the Northern Arapaho was engaged. 

I think that input will be critical moving forward when talking 

about sustaining subsistence as well as encouraging agricultural 

management as well. 

Senator SMITH. I look forward to continuing that conversation 

and that work. In many ways, this is a strong farm bill but it is 

also certainly not a revolutionary bill. I appreciate there are many 

more opportunities to work together on this. 

Thank you, Mr. Chair. 

The CHAIRMAN. [Presiding.] Vice Chairman Udall. 

Senator UDALL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Director Romero-Briones, you testified Native peoples hold the 

capacity and ingenuity to ensure the sustainable economic, spiritual and cultural well being of their communities if given the right 

tools. 

You go on to say this belief largely stems from longstanding food 

system management. I could not agree with you more. I have repeatedly said decisions made by tribes for tribes produce the best 

results. 

That is why I have introduced legislation to allow tribes to manage their own child nutrition programs and joined the Chairman in 

legislation to allow tribes to 638 their own food distribution and 

forestry functions on adjacent forest lands. We are working to provide those tools. 

What can we do to help push the envelope on food sovereignty? 

Do you feel the 638 model is best or are there other solutions? 

44 

Ms. ROMERO-BRIONES. The 638 model would revolutionize, and I 

use that word with a lot of reservation, how Federal feeding programs support Native communities. In addition, if you take that in 

conjunction with the traditional foods provision in the farm bill, 

you really have a good foundation for supporting subsistence practices and traditional lifestyles. 

The caveat is that right now the USDA and the FDA are concerned about traditional foods entering these Federal programs because of food safety concerns. I think one further step would be trying to mitigate and insert ourselves into that conversation now. 

Senator UDALL. An important tool for tribes to have direct involvement in their ecological management is through the BIA’s integrated resource management planning process. Unfortunately, 

the process for tribes to create an IRMP is overly long and excessively technical and can take up to five years for a tribe to simply 

collect and compile its data. 

Due to the effects of climate change, we are seeing more severe 

and unpredictable weather events that can have traumatic effects 

on the environment and subsistence activities. 

Director Romero-Briones, how can tribes and the BIA make the 

IRMP process more efficient and adaptable to the effects of climate 

change? 

Ms. ROMERO-BRIONES. Again, thank you for that comment because I think you hit on the most important. Those definitely need 

to come out of that agency much faster. I am not privy to the barriers causing the delay. Perhaps it is staffing or perhaps the way 

a tribe has to approach the BIA to get one started, but I would love 

to see those move faster. 

Senator UDALL. Are there any comments from the other witnesses on what I just asked? Chairman Brown. 

Mr. BROWN. I would like to emphasize that it would be incredibly 

beneficial to tribes to be able to 638 programs like food distribution 

which is at the core of our issues on the Wind River Reservation 

and I am sure across Indian Country. 

I think the intent of the 638 Self Determination Act was really 

that tribes know how to best take care of their communities, having the ability to do that. I echo Director Romero-Briones’ statements. That would revolutionize the way that we live. 

Senator UDALL. Thank you. 

Dr. Hardin, as I close, I just want to emphasize again the climate 

change front and how serious is the situation the tribes face. In 

northern New Mexico in one particular circumstance, there is a 

small canyon that Santa Clara of Pueblo has. It has been wiped out 

by forest fires and floods. It was a beautiful area where there were 

three ponds and people could fish. Now it is ground zero for climate 

change. 

I do not care what you call it or if you want to call it adaptation. 

The issue is there is money there to do these kinds of things. I 

think we are being very shortsighted in saying because we call it 

something, we are not going to use that money at all. 

I hope you take back that message to Interior because I think 

these tribal communities are right at ground zero, in the bulls-eye, 

when it comes to the impacts of climate change. 

45 

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I really appreciate your focusing on this issue. 

The CHAIRMAN. Certainly, Vice Chairman Udall. Thank you. 

With that, again, I want to thank our witnesses. 

If there are no more questions, members may submit follow-up 

questions for the record. The hearing record will be open for two 

weeks. 

With that, again, thank you. 

The hearing is concluded. 

[Whereupon, at 3:44 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.] 

(47) 

1 Alaska Department of Fish and Game. Division of Subsistence. Subsistence in Alaska: A 

Year 2014 Update. By James A. Fall. Anchorage, Alaska: ADF&G, 2016. 1-4. 2 Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act, § 43 U.S. Code Chapter 33 (1971) 3 Joint Statement. In 2247 P.L. 92-746, Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act. Proceedings of 

House Republican Conference Report. Vol. 746. Washington, D.C.: 92ST Congress, 1971. 4 Anderson, Robert. Alaska Native Rights, Statehood, and Unfinished Business. Tulsa Law Review 43, no. 17 (2007): 17-42. 

A P P E N D I X 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF KEVIN BARTLEY, RURAL RESIDENT OF ALASKA

Thank you for the opportunity to share my experiences with and recommendations for improving the Federal Subsistence Management Program. Effective and responsible management or care of our fish, wildlife, lands, and waters in Alaska requires meaningful communications and collaborations between federal, state, tribal, 

and public partners. Our children’s future depends on our commitment to work together. 

A Way of Life 

Rural residents and residents of non-subsistence use areas harvest 33.8 million 

pounds of fish and game annually in Alaska. 1 There are vast differences in the 

ways in which people understand the term subsistence. Many urban peoples unfamiliar with Alaska understand subsistence in the context of the definition to subsist 

or acquire the minimum needs for survival. Some agency managers and scientists 

in Alaska understand the term subsistence to refer to customary and traditional 

harvest practices. Tribal and rural residents of Alaska understand subsistence as 

our culture; our way of life. Subsistence for Alaska Native Peoples and rural residents is associated with tastes, smells, and feelings. It is relationships and togetherness. It is community. It is life. When mismanagement and regulation deprive us 

from practicing our cultures or ways of life, we lose pieces of who we are. These 

hardships especially affect our children and elders. 

Background 

The 1971 Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA) extinguished all indigenous land claims in exchange for 44 million acres and 962.5 million dollars. 2 Four 

hundred million was distributed over 11 years among 13 Alaska Native Regional 

Corporations. The remaining 562.5 million was distributed following the completion 

of the Trans-Alaska Pipeline. One unforeseen consequence of ANCSA included the 

extinguishment of aboriginal hunting and fishing rights. To resolve this concern 

among Alaska Native Peoples, a 1971 House Conference Joint Statement declared: 

‘‘All Native interests in subsistence resource lands can and will be protected by 

the Secretary through the exercise of his existing withdrawal authority. The 

Secretary could, for example, withdraw appropriate lands and classify them in 

a manner which would protect Native subsistence needs and requirements by 

closing appropriate lands to entry by non-residents.The Conference Committee 

expects both the Secretary and the State to take any action necessary to protect 

the subsistence needs of the Natives’’. 3

The absence of a self-governance option or protections for Alaska Native hunting, 

fishing, and gathering rights remain unfinished business. 4 Congress broke their 

promise to protect Alaska Native Peoples hunting and fishing rights in the 1980 

Alaska National Interests Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA). Instead, Congress 

strengthened hunting and fishing privileges for all rural residents in Alaska, exclaiming to do otherwise would constitute a discriminatory policy. 

ANILCA Title VIII did take several important steps to ensure that the fish, wildlife, and people of Alaska remain healthy. Rural residents were provided a meaningful role in the management of fish and wildlife. Non-wasteful subsistence uses of 

fish and wildlife by federally qualified subsistence users were prioritized over all 

48 

5 Alaska National Interests Lands Conservation Act, §Public Law 96-487 (1980). 6 Bartley, Kevin, and Jeffrey J. Brooks. Understanding and Improving Collaborative Management of Fish and Wildlife in Western Alaska. Final Report. Office of Subsistence Management, 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2014. 1-117. 7 U.S. Senate, Committee on Indian Affairs, Oversight Hearing on ‘‘Keep What You Catch: Promoting Traditional Subsistence Activities in Native Communities.’’ June 20, 2018. 8 U.S. Senate, June 20, 2018. 

other consumptive uses. A Federal Subsistence Board (FSB) and regional advisory 

councils were established to develop hunting and fishing regulations on federal 

lands. A duty and responsibility was created to ensure the continued viability of fish 

and wildlife and opportunity for subsistence uses. Finally, tools were identified to 

restrict the take of fish and wildlife to federally qualified subsistence users only and 

among these same users when necessary. 

Agreements with Tribes 

Federal agencies often refer to consultation as a unique and special privilege that 

tribes enjoy as sovereign nations. The term consult means to seek information or 

advice. This inadequately describes the relationship between tribes and the U.S. 

Government. Federally recognized tribes possess the right to negotiate governmentto-government with the U.S. Government under the 1934 Indian Reorganization Act 

(IRA). The word negotiate means to arrange for and bring about through discussion 

and compromise. A negotiating role is more closely synonymous with a decisionmaking role than an advisory role. Any agreements with sovereign federally recognized tribes must honor tribes’ right to negotiate towards a mutually beneficial compromise. 

Amending the ANILCA 

Congress declared, ‘‘that an administrative structure be established for the purpose of enabling rural residents. . .to have a meaningful role in the management 

of fish and wildlife and of subsistence uses on the public lands in Alaska. 5 Two 

challenges remain in regards to ANILCA Section 801 (5). First, the still undefined 

term meaningful role is meaningless to Alaska Native Peoples and rural residents. 

Second, tribal and rural residents’ involvement on the regional advisory councils 

and the FSB is limited to subsistence uses of fish and wildlife only. Twenty-one 

Western Alaskans define the term meaningful role as the capacity to work together 

and share equal decisionmaking authority. 6 Tribal and rural residents I work with 

across Alaska also share similar understandings of what a meaningful role is. Significant amendments will be necessary to improve the Federal Subsistence Management Program (FSMP) if a bottom up approach is desired as suggested by OSM Policy Coordinator Jennifer Hardin. 

I echo and applaud Mary Sattler Peltola’s testimony and recommendation to remove the Office of Subsistence Management (OSM) from under the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service (USFWS). 7 Housing the OSM beneath the USFWS continues to 

present clear ethical concerns. How can the OSM adequately serve the rural residents of Alaska while also charged with the task of serving each of the five federal 

agencies that makeup the FSB? Many Alaskans observe the strong influence that 

advocacy groups like the Sierra Club, Defenders of Wildlife, and the Alaska Outdoor 

Council have on these federal agencies and the State of Alaska. The missions of 

these five agencies and the many advocacy groups who support them often do not 

intertwine with tribes’ and rural residents’ fish and wildlife management goals. It 

is inappropriate to charge the OSM to serve in such a role mired by conflicts of interest. Nothing makes this point clearer than OSM Policy Coordinator Jennifer Hardin’s testimony that, ‘‘the [Federal Subsistence Management] Program will continue 

to seek balance between the harvest needs of rural subsistence users, conservation 

mandates of land management agencies, and the diverse values of.the many user 

groups seeking opportunities to hunt and fish on Federal public lands’’. Balancing 

the conservation mandates of the federal agencies with the diverse values of many 

user groups seeking to hunt and fish on federal public lands is not the intent or 

purpose of ANILCA Title VIII. 

I also support Mary Sattler Peltola’s recommendation to restructure the FSB. 8

Rural residents must have equal representation and decisionmaking authority on 

the FSB to possess a truly meaningful role. The FSB includes five federal agency 

directors and three rural residents. Many FSB members representing the federal 

agencies begin their service the same year they arrive to Alaska and most rarely 

serve beyond five years. Failing to require all FSB Members to possess personal 

knowledge of local conditions presents a scary reality for many Alaskans. A single 

vote from a FSB member unknowledgeable about our unique ecospheres, fish, wildlife, and cultures could mean the difference between whether our children eat or go 

49 

9Fall, James A. ‘‘Governance Systems for Subsistence in Alaska’’. Proceedings of Western Division, American Fisheries Society, Anchorage, Alaska. 2018. 10Fall, James A. ‘‘Governance Systems for Subsistence in Alaska’’. 2018. 

hungry. Observing the food prices at any rural grocery store in Alaska will drive 

home the seriousness of this point. Most tribal and rural residents prefer wild 

caught foods and overwhelmingly attest to the physical, mental, and spiritual importance of harvesting, storing, sharing, and eating them. 

Figure 1 demonstrates the rising percentage of Alaska Native Peoples living in 

non-subsistence areas of Alaska. The percentage of Alaska Native Peoples living in 

non-subsistence areas of Alaska in 1980 was 27.7 percent. 9 An average of 52.4 percent of Alaska Native Peoples were living in non-subsistence areas of Alaska during 

the period between 2012 and 2016. 10 Prior to 2000, census polls asked only whether 

people were Alaska Native. Census polling in 2000 began asking whether people 

identified themselves as Alaska Native alone or in combination with other racial descents. A rising percentage of Alaska Native Peoples living in non-subsistence areas 

of Alaska presents significant implications for and further substantiates the need 

to amend the ANILCA. ANILCA Title VIII can no longer deliver on the promise and 

intent to protect Alaska Native hunting, fishing, and gathering rights with more 

than 52.4 percent of Alaska Native peoples now living in non-subsistence areas of 

Alaska. 

Congress should consider the following amendments to fulfill the intent and promises associated with the ANILCA. Insert the words ‘‘Alaska Native Peoples and’’ in 

front of each use of the words ‘‘rural residents’’. Create a truly meaningful and equal 

decisionmaking role for Alaska Native Peoples and rural residents in the management of fish and wildlife. Revise tribal consultation procedures to ensure tribes possess the negotiating role they are due under the IRA with an obligation from federal 

partners to seek and achieve mutually beneficial compromises. Expand Alaska Native Peoples and rural residents’ involvement to include equal representation on all 

boards and committees deciding on federal undertakings that may affect the health 

of lands, waters, fish, and wildlife in Alaska. This should include equal representation on the North Pacific Fisheries Management Board. Developing an outreach and 

scoping plan to gather additional insights from each tribe and rural community in 


620a2.eps
50 

11 Bartley, Kevin A. They Don’t Know How We Live: Understanding Collaborative Management in Western Alaska. Master’s thesis, University of Alaska Anchorage, 2014. 1-423. 12 Jacobs, Melanie, and Jeffrey J. Brooks. ′′Alaska Natives and Conservation Planning: A Recipe for Meaningful Participation.′′ Native Studies Review 20, no. 2 (2011): 91-135. 13Scharmer, Otto. The Essentials of Theory U: Leading from the Future as It Emerges. 2nd. 

ed. San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler Publishers, 2016. 14Kahane, Adam. Solving Tough Problems: An Open Way of Talking, Listening, and Creating 

New Realities. San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler Publishers, 2007. 15 U.S. Senate, June 20, 2018. 16 USGCRP, Climate Science Special Report: Fourth National Climate Assessment, Volume I 

[Wuebbles, D.J., D.W. Fahey, K.A. Hibbard, D.J. Dokken, B.C. Stewart, and T.K. Maycock 

(eds.)]. U.S. Global Change Research Program, Washington, DC, USA, 2017. 1-669. doi:10.7930/ 

JOJ964J6. 17 USGCRP, Climate Science Report, 446. 18 USGCRP, Climate Science Report, 443. 19Tarnocai, et al. Soil Organic Carbon Pools in the Northern Circumpolar Permafrost Region. 

Global Biogeochemical Cycles 23, no.2 (2009): 1-11. 20 Cable, et al. Scaling-up Permafrost Thermal Measurements in Western Alaska Using an 

Ecotype Approach. The Cryosphere 10 (2016): 2517-2532. 21 Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Subsistence in Alaska: A Year 2014 Update, 2. 

Alaska will increase the potential for a meaningful, pragmatic, and lasting amendment to the ANILCA. 

Improving Relationships and Understanding 

Communication challenges and partners’ lack of understanding of each other’s cultures, worldviews, and management approaches are significant challenges to meaningful and effective collaborative management of fish and wildlife in Alaska. 11 We 

can overcome this challenge by investing in and sharing informal interactions with 

each other. Frequent communications and collaborations between partners is critical. 12 Productive negotiations are linked to how well stakeholders know and understand each other. Strong relationships are the product of shared experiences. 

Urban-based training seminars are not enough to educate FSB Members about 

Alaska. Funding to develop and implement a program that brings FSB Members 

and rural residents together to engage in informal activities such as hunting and 

fishing will strengthen their understandings of and relationships with each other. 

Sharing informal experiences with those we do not know in settings that we are unfamiliar with are often uncomfortable. Such experiences are opportunities to grow 

because we tend to listen more. Conversations and collaborations help us to reflect, 

see, learn, process, and act. 13 Truly listening to each other will enable us to stretch 

our understandings and create new and promising realities together. 14

Climate Change 

‘‘It’s no secret the Trump Administration does not believe in climate change, but 

Indian Country doesn’t have the luxury to put its head in the sand’’. 15 Senator 

Udall’s words hit home to those of us living in rural Alaska. Failing to respond to 

our changing climate is not an option. Global famine and war will surely follow if 

we do not invest in sustainable futures, technologies, and infrastructure. Funding 

to better understand, plan for, and respond to climate change is critical to the 

health of all Alaskans. 

Climate changes in Alaska and across the Arctic are outpacing changes observed 

across the globe. 16 Land and sea ice loss is accelerating. Anthropogenic or human 

derived forces are linked to and exacerbating ocean acidification, increasing river 

runoff, warming permafrost, and rising sea levels. Annual average Arctic sea ice is 

decreasing 3.5 percent and 4.1 percent per decade since 1980. 17 There is high confidence that human activities are contributing to more than half of the observed rise 

in Arctic surface temperatures and September sea ice decline since 1979. 18 Warming permafrost poses a significant and potentially uncontrollable release of carbon. 19

Coastal permafrost is warming faster than interior regions in northern Alaska and 

northwest Canada. Ground temperatures rose from 16.5oF to 21.5 oF in Deadhorse, 

Alaska between 1977 and 2015. 20

We are observing significant declines in salmon populations across Alaska. Most 

Alaska Native and rural residents share a deep relationship with wild salmon. 

Salmon declines are affecting the physical, mental, and spiritual health of Alaska 

Native and rural residents. Commercial fishing harvest accounted for 3.667 billion 

pounds in 2014. 21 This number represents 98.5 percent of all fish and game harvested among user groups in pounds. It is clear that commercial fishing represents 

single most significant human impact on fisheries and those dependent on fish living across rural Alaska. How commercial fishing operations in Alaska directly and 

51 

1MOA: Memorandum of Agreement between United States Department of the Interior and 

Ahtna Intertribal Resource Commission. Anchorage: Department of the Interior, 2016. 2 Joint Statement.’’ In 2247 P.L. 92–746, Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act. Proceedings 

of House Republican Conference Report. Vol. 746. Washington, D.C.: 92ST Congress, 1971. 

indirectly affect the continued viability of fish and opportunity for subsistence fishing warrants further exploration. 

Ensuring that continual hard funding exists to support the upstart and operations 

of intertribal resource commissions will help to address the many resource challenges we are experiencing throughout rural Alaska. The recently established Ahtna 

Intertribal Resource Commission and Yukon and Kuskokwim Inter-tribal Fish Commissions are improving partnerships and expanding opportunities between tribes 

and federal land and resource management agencies. Making these funds available 

through the Bureau of Indian Affairs with the option for compacting and contracting 

will present a more flexible, pragmatic, and effective fiscal pathway. 

I hope these insights and recommendations lead to meaningful negotiations and 

actions in the near future. Forming a Statewide Committee to address fish and wildlife management and climate change in Alaska would be an excellent next step. 

Thank you for your time in reviewing this testimony. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF KAREN LINNELL, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, AHTNA

INTERTRIBAL RESOURCE COMMISSION

Thank you for the opportunity to share our experiences with and recommendations for improving the Federal Subsistence Management Program. Effective and responsible stewardship of our fish, wildlife, lands, and waters in Alaska requires dialogue and collaborations between federal, state, tribal, and public partners. Future 

generations depend on our commitment to work together. 

The Ahtna Intertribal Resource Commission (AITRC) was established in 2011 as 

part of a long-standing desire of Ahtna tribes and organizations to conserve, manage, and develop the fish, wildlife, and plant resources of the Ahtna region according 

to culturally-relevant values. AITRC’s core purpose is to exercise tribal sovereignty 

and self-determination to promote traditional resource stewardship on the ancestral 

lands of the Ahtna people. 

A Memorandum of Agreement was adopted on November 29, 2016, between the 

U.S. Department of the Interior and the AITRC to promote co-management with 

Ahtna tribes. This agreement formalizes our wildlife management partnership and 

seeks to resolve the disappearance of a reasonable opportunity to practice our customary and traditional moose and caribou hunting patterns. We agreed: 

The Department will immediately commence rulemaking to allow the issuance 

of AITRC-managed community harvest permit(s).Such permit(s) may be for the 

benefit of the AITRC’s member tribal communities only [and]. . .will allow 

AITRC to establish harvest limits, quotas, season dates, and methods and 

means. 1

Increasing participation in Community Subsistence Hunts managed by the State 

of Alaska drove us to begin negotiations with the DOI on this MOA. Challenges 

stemming from this hunt continue to intensify. Roadside pull-offs are plugged with 

trucks, trailers, and four wheelers. Some report that they are unable to bring their 

children hunting due to the growing prevalence of unsafe hunting practices observed 

in the Copper Basin. Once quiet and peaceful places to teach our children are becoming noisy and trash filled areas. There is nothing respectful or customary and 

traditional about the intensive hunting observed on our ancestral homelands today. 

Ahtna Elder Roy S Ewan spoke to a group of young people days before his passing. Roy’s message focused on the unfinished business pertaining to the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act. He recalled the promise by federal and state congressional leaders during the House Conference Committee. On the protection of Alaska 

Native hunting and fishing rights, the House Conference Joint Statement declared: 

The Conference Committee. . .believes that all Native interests in subsistence 

resource lands can and will be protected by the Secretary through the exercise 

of his existing withdrawal authority. . ..The Conference Committee expects 

both the Secretary and the State to take any action necessary to protect the 

subsistence needs of the Natives’’. 2

Many Alaska Native Peoples believe the promise to protect their subsistence 

needs has been largely unrealized. We view this MOA as an opportunity for Ahtna 

52 

3 U.S. Senate, Committee on Indian Affairs, Oversight Hearing on ‘‘Keep What You Catch: Promoting Traditional Subsistence Activities in Native Communities’’. June 20, 2018. 

Peoples to exercise our right to negotiate as sovereign Nations with the United 

States Government to protect our subsistence needs, culture, and ways of life. 

Since the signing of the MOA, we have been met with delays and resistance to 

the implementation of our MOA. We believe that this is because the Office of Subsistence Management is housed within the US Fish and Wildlife (USFWS). AITRC 

agrees and endorses Mary Sattler Peltola’s testimony and recommendation to remove the Office of Subsistence Management (OSM) from under the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service. 3 Housing the OSM beneath the USFWS continues to present clear 

ethical concerns. How can the OSM adequately serve the rural residents of Alaska 

while also charged with the task of serving each of the five federal agencies that 

makeup the FSB? Moving the Office of Subsistence Management out of the US Fish 

& Wildlife Service would be a move to strengthen and lend autonomy to the OSM. 

We would also like to see tribal representation at the Interagency Staff Committee meetings to represent tribal interests to the FSB. Currently, proposals are 

submitted to the Federal Subsistence Board are reviewed by an Interagency Staff 

Committee (ISC). The ISC makes comments and recommends whether or not the 

proposals go on a consent or non-consent agenda. The opportunity to participate in 

all future ISC meetings would provide us with a more meaningful role in the Federal Subsistence Management Program. AITRC defines a meaningful role as a decisionmaking role engaged in all levels of management, including planning, negotiation, and implementation. Input at this table will undoubtedly improve the recommendations before the Board. Participating in ISC meetings will also present opportunities to learn about each other’s concerns and discuss pragmatic and mutually 

beneficial solutions. Certainly, there could be no harm from working together; a goal 

all stakeholders seem to share. 

Rural FSB members must meet a criteria of personal knowledge of local conditions. No such criteria exist for Agency FSB members. Agency representatives are 

often new to Alaska and here for a short time before beginning their service on the 

Federal Subsistence Board. Expanding the FSB to include additional tribal/rural 

seats will strengthen our meaningful participation and improve the Board’s overall 

personal knowledge of rural Alaska. 

AITRC’s vision is to manage our traditional lands to ensure that our lands, waters, air, fish, wildlife, and people remain healthy. We look to regain a meaningful 

role in the management of our traditional lands through this MOA. The opportunity 

to work together as negotiating partners is a welcome change. Building strong partnership will help us accomplish our mutual goals and prepare our young people to 

respond responsibly to our changing world. 

We sincerely thank and respect the Committee of Indian Affairs for their time and 

support. 

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY HON. CATHERINE CORTEZ MASTO

TO MARY SATTLER PELTOLA

Question 1. You stated that tribal subsistence fishers are often subject to conflicting laws and policies governing natural resources. The clash between State, Federal, and Tribal regulations complicates the practice of subsistence fishing and undermines tribal sovereignty. You also suggested that there should be specific locations set aside for tribal communities to engage in subsistence fishing. Who should 

be responsible for identifying and reserving areas specifically for tribal subsistence 

fishing? 

Answer. The Kuskokwim River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission (KRITFC or Commission) appreciates the additional opportunity to discuss its members’ traditional 

subsistence activities, and ways in which those activities are being helped and hindered by existing government actions. As I discussed during my testimony on June 

20, 2018, the Commission believes that a legislative fix to the Alaska National Interest in Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA) is essential. Until Congress acts, significant reform in the regulations and administration of the Federal Subsistence Management Program (FSMP), is necessary maintain existing subsistence opportunity 

and advance self-determination in managing Alaska’s fish and wildlife. 

In order to fully address the numerous problems with Title VIII, Congress needs 

to amend ANILCA to explicitly recognize the right of Alaska Natives to hunt and 

fish on federal lands and waters, and to regulate these uses for their tribal members 

on lands and waters traditionally used for subsistence. Alaska Natives have wellestablished, identified, traditional hunting and fishing territories within the boundVerDate Mar 15 2010 11:12 Dec 27, 2018 Jkt 033836 PO 00000 Frm 00056 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 S:\DOCS\33836.TXT JACK
53 

1 16 U.S.C. § 3111. 

aries of federal parks, forests and refuges. These are the public lands where tribes 

should have hunting, fishing and management rights. 

Additionally, Congress needs to ensure that Alaska Natives have the right to use 

and manage the traditional lands retained by Alaska Native Corporations through 

the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA) for hunting and fishing. Many 

Alaska Native Corporations chose their settlement lands based on their value for 

subsistence uses. Yet, the State of Alaska currently claims jurisdiction to manage 

all hunting and fishing on these Native lands, and the Department of Interior has 

done nothing to challenge this injustice. Some of the prime Alaska Native hunting 

and fishing grounds were identified, claimed and conveyed to ANCSA corporations 

more than 50 years ago. It is time for Congress and DOI to ensure that Alaska Natives can use these lands without being restricted or forbidden by State management. 

However, the situation demands action until Congress acts. The DOI Secretary 

needs to revise the regulations establishing the administrative structure for implementing Title VIII. The revisions need to be based on recognition of the government 

to- government status of Alaska’s tribes and maximum implementation of self-determination in implementing subsistence hunting and fishing. Title VIII needs to be 

recognized by DOI as ‘‘Indian’’ legislation, despite the ‘‘rural’’ priority since it was 

clearly the intent of Congress to protect the Alaska Native cultural, nutritional and 

traditional subsistence way of life. 1 DOI should then enter into 638 compacts and 

annual funding agreements with tribes for federal subsistence management programs. DOI can do all of this without diminishing the protection for those rural residents who are dependent on subsistence resources and are not tribal members. 

Much of the current administrative structure can be retained for these rural residents. 

The existing federal protections for Alaska Native hunting and fishing rights are 

inadequate to provide the full and meaningful access and opportunity to meet traditional, nutritional and cultural needs. Title VIII of ANICLA fails to explicitly recognize the right of Alaska Natives to use federal public lands and waters to hunt, fish 

and sustain their way of life. Instead section 804 of ANILCA provides for a ‘‘rural’’ 

instead of Native priority. It is therefore not currently accepted as legislation adopted for the benefit of Native Americans and not interpreted pursuant to the cannons 

of construction that favor decisions supporting Native rights. Federal agencies resist 

compacting federal programs related to subsistence management because Title VIII 

is not ‘‘Indian’’ legislation or a right reserved for Alaska Natives. The administrative 

structure established for implementing Title VIII fails to provide the tribes with any 

regulatory, management or enforcement authority over their members hunting and 

fishing. Instead, those who have practiced this way of life as far back as we can 

remember, and whose culture and welfare remain tied to their traditional lands and 

resources, are completely sidelined while federal boards and agencies make all of 

the rules. This kind of dominant and culturally destructive policy was abandoned 

in most all other cases in favor of a policy of maximizing self-determination. 

Congress has clearly empowered the Secretary of the Interior (the Secretary) with 

discretion to implement the federal subsistence rights mandated in ANILCA. However, conflicting State and Federal regulations, and the nature of the political relationship between the State and the Federal government have resulted in a Federal 

subsistence management program that is highly deferential to the State of Alaska 

(the State), to the detriment of our tribes, our self-determination, and our customary 

and traditional subsistence uses of available fish and wildlife resources. 

The State interprets its Constitution and statutes such that every resident is a 

subsistence user regardless of whether those residents are genuinely engaged in living a subsistence way of life. Federal regulations prioritize subsistence uses by rural 

residents, emphasizing the importance of food security and historical dependence on 

subsistence resources in Alaska’s rural communities. These conflicting eligibility requirements create a number of regulatory, political, and cultural conflicts frustrating effective subsistence management in our state, and confirm the need for the 

Secretary of the Interior actively engage in reforms that fully implement the rights 

protected in ANILCA and do so through empowering those most impacted and 

knowledgeable, Alaska Natives. 

54 

2The Metlakatla Indian Community is located on Annette Islands in southeastern Alaska and 

is the only Indian Reservation in the State of Alaska called the Annette Islands Reserve. See 

www.metlakatla.com/ for more information. 3 Anderson, Robert T. 2016. Sovereignty and Subsistence: Native Self-Governance and Rights 

to Hunt, Fish, and Gather After ANCSA, Legal Studies Research Paper No. 2017-01, 33 Alaska 

Law Review 187-227, p. 218. 4 Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act, § 43 U.S. Code Chapter 33 (1971). 5 Joint Statement, in 2247 P.L. 92-746, Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act. Proceedings of 

House Republican Conference Report. Vol. 746. Washington, D.C.: 92ST Congress, 1971. 6 Anderson 2016:217. 

7Pub. L. No. 113-142, 128 Stat. 1749 (2014). 

8 Anderson 2016:218. 

There is only one reservation in Alaska. 2 Outside of the Annette Islands Indian 

Reserve, no public lands are reserved specifically for Alaska Native subsistence 

uses. 

Following the enactment of ANCSA in 1971, Alaska Native Corporations selected 

and withdrew from the public domain millions of acres of land based upon their historical significance and importance to Alaska Native subsistence uses of available 

fish and wildlife resources. However, these lands are not recognized as Indian Country, and the State with the passive acceptance by DOI, has simply presumed the 

regulation of fish and wildlife resources found on and adjacent to these ANCSA 

lands. The result is that the traditional hunting and fishing territory retained by 

Alaska Natives in exchange for extinguishment of their aboriginal land claims have 

no federal protection, and in some cases state law forbids providing for a subsistence 

priority on Native lands.’’ 3 Alaska Native allotments, and the fish and wildlife resources found on and accessed from these lands, are also managed under State jurisdiction, despite the fact that most Alaska Native allotments are held in trust by 

the federal government on behalf of the Alaska Native allottee. 

In 1971, when Alaska Native land claims were addressed by the passage of 

ANCSA, 4 a House Conference Joint Statement stated Congress’s intent that Alaska 

Native interests in subsistence resources would be protected by the Secretary of Interior and the State of Alaska: 

‘‘All Native interests in subsistence resource lands can and will be protected by 

the Secretary [of the Interior] through the exercise of his existing withdrawal 

authority. The Secretary could, for example, withdraw appropriate lands and 

classify them in a manner which would protect Native subsistence needs and 

requirements by closing appropriate entry by non-residents. . . . The Conference Committee expects both the Secretary and the State [of Alaska] to take 

any action necessary to protect the subsistence needs of the Natives.’’ 5

Despite Congress’s clearly stated intent about the role the Secretary and the State 

were to take in protecting our subsistence uses, the protections provided to us by 

both parties are not sufficient. Both the State and federal subsistence management 

systems are broken and simply cannot succeed for Alaska Natives because of the 

complete lack of self-determination in this most essential right. We know what is 

needed for our cultures, the health of our peoples, our culture, and resources, but 

have no power to act. 

Congressional action, taken in consultation with our tribes, is critical to continued 

protections for our subsistence uses of fish and wildlife. Such action is not without 

precedent. For example, Congress has acted to ensure continued protections for 

Alaska Native subsistence uses of marine mammals and migratory birds through 

passage of Alaska Native exemptions in the Marine Mammal Protection Act and the 

Migratory Bird Treaty Act. 6 And, Congress recently passed the Huna Tlingit Traditional Gull Egg Use Act of 2014 that authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to 

allow the collection of glaucous-winged gull eggs in Glacier Bay National Park by 

members of the Hoonah Indian Association. 7 This type of congressional intervention 

is needed to address ongoing challenges faced by the Kuskokwim River Inter-Tribal 

Fish Commission. 

Congress’s broad authority to restore tribal powers over people and territory 

should be used to restore tribal territorial jurisdiction over fish and wildlife resources in Alaska. This should include recognition of Native hunting and fishing 

rights on ANCSA corporation land, Federal public, and even State lands. 8

Congress’s obligation to recognize and assist our self-determination demands such 

action. Without congressional action amending Title 8 of ANILCA to specifically provide for an Alaska Native subsistence preference, OSM, through its administration 

of the FSMP, will not take action to implement strengthened protections solely for 

55 

Alaska Native subsistence uses through ANILCA, as doing so would be considered 

discriminatory. 

Question 1a. What sort of regulations should or would be in place for non-tribal 

individuals that visit these natural resources? 

Answer. The Commission is not aware of a meaningful conflict between tribal 

hunting and fishing and the public’s right to visit and enjoy the federal parks, refuges and forests, and therefore does not have a position on any regulations to manage the visiting public to protect subsistence opportunity. 

The Commission also wants to be clear that in advocating for explicitly recognizing a subsistence right for Alaska Natives, and self-determination, it is not discounting the need or right of other non-tribal Alaska residents who are truly dependent on subsistence resources for their nutritional and social way of life to have 

a federally protected opportunity to do so. Congress and the Secretary can explicitly 

protect Native subsistence opportunity and self-determination while also establishing a right for non-tribal subsistence users and an administrative system that 

serves the needs of these users. 

Question 2. Many tribes are facing additional barriers due to state regulations. 

Indigenous peoples who have practiced subsistence fishing and hunting for generations are experiencing large fines for not abiding by state regulations and a seizure 

of goods and supplies necessary for subsistence harvesting at the hands of the state. 

How can the federal government assume an active role in protecting the sovereignty 

of native peoples and continuing this tradition and what would tribal co-management over subsistence activities look like? 

Answer. Our answers to the above questions explain the Commission’s position on 

necessary Congressional and Secretarial action. We will therefore take this opportunity to further discuss the existing shortcomings with the current federal subsistence regulation process. 

The existing federal administrative process is contrary to self-determination and 

tribal engagement in federal management of subsistence uses of salmon in the 

Kuskokwim River in several ways. Every year, the Commission spends an exorbitant amount of time navigating and participating in the federal subsistence management administrative process, at great expense and inconvenience to the Commission’s members, many of whom live in rural areas hundreds of roadless miles away 

from where administrative events take place. This hinders the Commission’s ability 

to regularly and effectively engage the thousands of tribal citizens living along the 

Kuskokwim River and who make up the Commission’s thirty-three member tribes. 

Too commonly, the Commission’s positions and management plans are diminished 

by its Federal management ‘‘partners.’’ At times, it appears that U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife’s primary priority is getting along with the State rather than ensuring that 

our subsistence needs are fulfilled. The Commission needs clear and enhanced authority to develop and implement management plans that will serve the needs of 

its tribal members, provide for conservation, and allow for the needs of other federally qualified subsistence users. The Secretary needs to revise the administrative 

structure so that there is a clear path between the Secretary and tribes for subsistence management. The Secretarial authority that is currently delegated to the Federal Subsistence Board should be delegated to the Commission. This is vital given 

the growing impacts of climate change on natural resources we depend on. It is vital 

that tribes have a central role in implementing and administering ANILCA, rather 

than be relegated to the sidelines as the Federal and State governments implement 

their own uninformed policies. 

Alaska Native tribes and tribal entities have successfully co-managed the subsistence use of fish and wildlife resources throughout Alaska under other federal statutes for a number of years. These successful co-management programs provide excellent examples of how the Commission should be empowered for co-management 

under Title VIII. For example, the Alaska Eskimo Whaling Commission (AEWC), in 

partnership with NOAA, co-manages the take of bowhead whales, and enforces the 

provisions of a management plan with its own members with great success. Through 

co-management, the AEWC has expanded the collective scientific and traditional understandings of bowhead whale biology and behavior while providing sustainable, 

customary, and traditional whaling hunts. As a result, the numbers of bowhead 

whales in Alaskan waters have increased while ensuring that AEWC-member subsistence needs are met. 

In the 1980s, migratory bird populations experienced historic declines. Conservation efforts resulted in prohibiting the subsistence take of specific species. One such 

species was the Emperor Goose, a valued subsistence food. Along with U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife and the State, the Native Caucus of the Alaska Migratory Bird Co-Management Council (AMBCC) began co-managing the subsistence take of migratory birds 

56 

9 50 CFR 100.14(a). 

in Alaska pursuant to the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. Through the co-management 

of the AMBCC, the Emperor Goose population began to climb again, and a subsistence and non-subsistence hunt for Emperor Goose was recently implemented for 

first time since 1983. Yet another example of exemplary co-management is found 

in the many Alaska Native marine mammal commissions, which develop and implement management plans regulating the take of specific marine mammals pursuant 

to the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA). 

Kuskokwim River tribes are the most dependent users of returning spawning runs 

of Pacific salmon, yet are most vulnerable if populations crash and become extinct. 

These examples demonstrate that not only is tribal co-management of fish and wildlife resources important, but necessary to our ongoing physical and spiritual 

wellness. 

The Commission has actively participated in the management of subsistence fisheries on the Kuskokwim River since 2015. A tangible benefit of our involvement has 

been the widespread compliance with stringent salmon fishing restrictions necessitated by the poor returns of Chinook salmon. In the past, compliance with harvest 

restrictions was difficult or otherwise impossible to ensure because there was no role 

for our own tribes to provide input and become actively engaged in the promotion 

and implementation of these conservation measures. 

The Commission’s goal is to assume primary responsibility for the management 

of Kuskokwim River subsistence fisheries for its tribal members through co-management with the State and Federal governments. The Commission believes that a 

demonstration project authorized and funded by Congress would be the logical vehicle to enable the Commission to do this. With input and involvement from other 

stakeholders, including the State and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the Commission would draft and implement a management plan for tribal subsistence fisheries 

throughout the Kuskokwim River. Conservation of healthy fish stocks would be a 

primary concern for all parties, as well as providing subsistence opportunity for 

other qualified non-tribal users. The Commission’s member tribes would be responsible for implementing and enforcing the management plan for its own members. 

Subsistence users who are not tribal members would have their opportunity and 

rights implemented and protected pursuant to applicable state and federal systems 

and regulations. 

Providing the Commission this enhanced authority could happen in a number of 

ways: 

1. The only way to solve the numerous obstacles presented by Title VIII is for 

Congress to enact federal legislation that explicitly recognizes Alaska Native 

subsistence rights and tribal management of this right. 

2. In the meantime, Congress could direct the Secretary to engage in rulemaking to create a direct management structure between the Secretary and 

the Commission under which the Secretary delegates authority directly to 

our tribes to manage subsistence uses of fish on the Kuskokwim. 

These remedies will allow KRITFC to focus efforts on important engagement and 

research efforts with the 33-member tribes including discussions about issues of concern, documentation of traditional knowledge, and current observations of tribal elders. This type of work is vital to support more effective salmon management. 

The Commission also continues its outreach role to inform and educate the public 

about salmon conservation initiatives and the management approaches taken by the 

KRITFC’s In-Season Managers and federal and state agency actions. State and federal agencies face ongoing challenges in interacting with the public and it is necessary that the KRITFC have more opportunity to serve as a critical bridge in overcoming communication gaps. 

Question 2a. How could we balance state interest to protect endangered species 

with tribal rights to subsistence activities? 

Answer. The current regulatory structure in place under ANILCA builds in ample 

protections for state interests and endangered species. For example, federal management must defer to State regulations except where those State regulations conflict 

with federal regulations. 9 Alaska Native co-management of fish and wildlife resources, examples of which I discussed above, effectively maintains the balance between State and Federal interests in protecting endangered species and tribal rights 

to engage in customary and traditional subsistence uses of available fish and wildlife resources. 

Traditional tribal management principles shared by to the Commission’s members 

also protect endangered species without harming tribal subsistence rights. For exVerDate Mar 15 2010 11:12 Dec 27, 2018 Jkt 033836 PO 00000 Frm 00060 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 S:\DOCS\33836.TXT JACK
57 

10Simon, J. et al. 2007. Bethel Subsistence Fishing Harvest Monitoring Report, Kuskokwim 

Fisheries Management Area, Alaska, 2001–2003. Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Division of Subsistence, Technical Paper No. 330, pp. 30–32. 

ample, one such principle enforced by all of the Commission’s tribal members includes ‘‘Take only what you need, don’t waste or play with your food, and keep what 

you catch, it is food.’’ The Commission and its members firmly believe that disrespecting fish and wildlife resources will cause those resources to decline such that 

human beings will suffer. Tribal co-management principles implicitly incorporate 

protections for endangered species, and balance those protections against tribal 

rights to continue engaging in subsistence uses of those species. 

Question 3. One of the prominent barriers to subsistence activities is the harmful 

role of climate change in natural ecosystems in Indian Country. We know that when 

lakes and other natural resources are polluted, and communities are unable to harvest resources, they lose an important source of nutrition? Have you collected any 

data or research on the relationship between environmental pollution and native 

health in communities that practice subsistence fishing, hunting, or fishing? If so, 

can you talk about how native health is impacted by climate change? 

Answer. Climate change is affecting the lives of all residents of the 33 KRITFC 

member tribes in the Kuskokwim region. The Commission lacks the resources to 

conduct ‘‘formal’’ climate change studies demonstrating how climate change is affecting our subsistence resources. However, by the measure of the traditional knowledge 

used and recognized by our elders, the Commission is well aware that climate 

change is making it more challenging to predict weather, river conditions, and fish 

and wildlife behavior. Tribal elders are observing changes in weather, temperature, 

river water levels, returning species, and other indicators of natural resource status, 

health, changes which all suggest that climate change and the coincident escalation 

of global temperatures is having a detrimental effect upon our subsistence resources—which, in turn, has a detrimental effect upon our physical, psychological, 

and spiritual well-being. 

With regard to pollution, the Commission is fortunate in that point sources of pollution are not something that is widespread in our region. However it is an area 

of significant concern for us, especially in light of proposed development projects. 

While the historical mineral mining and the development of a military industrial 

complex has resulted in polluted waters and other areas of concern, efforts are underway to minimize impacts to protected tribal rights, resources, and lands. Such 

programs include the Native American Lands Environmental Mitigation Program 

(NALEMP) and CERCLA or the Superfund which has been recently mitigating mercury contamination associated with historic mining activities in Red Devil. 

In 2007, state and federal agencies issued a health advisory regarding high levels 

of mercury contamination found in northern pike, one of our resident fish species 

that is widely enjoyed by area residents. A 2001–2003 state household survey found 

that Bethel residents alone harvested about 25,000 to 44,000 pounds of northern 

pike. 10 However, pregnant women and children were advised not to eat northern 

pike because of concerns about mercury. This is especially concerning when you realize how much pike we eat on the Kuskokwim River, not to mention all the other 

fish we catch for food and is a good example of why the Commission’s member tribes 

are concerned about point sources of pollution. 

It is of the utmost importance that the Commission continues to monitor the effects of global warming and pollution upon available fish and wildlife resources necessary to maintain our subsistence ways of life. There have been funding proposals, 

unsuccessful to date, to establish a discharge and temperature monitoring network 

throughout the Kuskokwim River. However, the Commission cannot do this while 

operating on a shoestring budget. The Commission’s operating budget for the current fiscal year is only $550,000.00. It is highly unlikely that the Commission will 

be able to fund, or otherwise develop the capacity to administer, projects and programs that take an enhanced look at the effect of climate change and pollution on 

our subsistence lifestyle. This network would be established by contracting scientists, then maintained by participants in select villages. 

Climate change has a broad range of impacts upon the lands, waters, and natural 

resources of Alaska. From milder, drier winters to warmer, wetter summers, these 

impacts change our physical landscape right before our eyes. These impacts also affect health and strength of the natural resources we depend on, as well as the lives 

and health of our tribal members. We need secure, dependable funding in order to 

build our capacity and commit to monitoring the effects of climate change. Additional congressional appropriation is one of the only ways to secure this necessary 

funding. 

58 

It is difficult to know the full extent to which climate change has affected the 

health and bounty of Kuskokwim River Chinook salmon stocks. But recent years of 

disastrously low Chinook salmon returns have deeply impacted our emotional, nutritional, economic, social, and spiritual well-being. We are no longer able to harvest 

enough Chinook salmon to meet our family’s nutritional needs throughout Alaska’s 

long and harsh winters. When our families can barely feed themselves, it then becomes additionally challenging for us to engage in our traditional practices of sharing and trading food resources with our friends and family who cannot otherwise 

provide for themselves. The Commission believes that the negative effects of climate 

change have created an ongoing scarcity of essential resources, which in turn is 

causing an ongoing crisis in our tribal communities as we lose our food security and 

watch one another suffer. 

Question 4. I understand that Native populations are the most vulnerable group 

to climate change and that environmental pollution of tribal lands and resources 

generally comes from surrounding businesses, plants, and communities that do not 

belong to the tribal community. What can we do to protect tribal lands from surrounding environmental pollution and what course of action can tribes or the government take against organizations, communities, or individual who contaminant 

tribal lands? 

Answer. Alaska Natives are highly vulnerable to climate change and environmental pollution. Climate change and environmental pollution compromise our food 

security, damage our lands, and are responsible for rapidly changing the physical 

and cultural landscape in which we exist. This is why it is so important for Congress to support laws, programs, and projects, such as the Commission’s proposed 

co-management and tribal stewardship of Kuskokwim River salmon stocks, which 

enfranchise our members and support our self-determination by enabling us to directly address these negative influences. Without an enfranchised tribal management system in place, these vulnerabilities, and the legal and administrative roadblocks preventing our ability to successfully address these vulnerabilities, will only 

deepen. Tribes need a real seat at the table to address these significant issues. 

Congress must also resist efforts to water down existing environmental protections found within the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and the Endangered Species Act (ESA), and must continue enforcing the full scope of protections 

found in these important laws. Climate change and environmental pollution are directly caused by business and industry’s failure to voluntarily put adequate protections in place for the development of their products. The answer to addressing climate change and environmental pollution is not to water-down legal obligations and 

protections with regard to industry and business actions, but to strengthen and continue enforcing those obligations and protections. 

Question 4a. How can traditional knowledge help address climate change impacts 

facing tribes? Do you think western science takes your suggestions seriously? 

Answer. There is a role for both western science and traditional knowledge to address the impacts of climate change affecting our members. While I personally do 

not think that western science values traditional knowledge in the same way that 

it values empirical data, there is increasing interest in and attention being paid to 

traditional knowledge in the context of resource management. Traditional knowledge passed down from our tribal ancestors helps us understand how we are to act 

and behave to ensure future success for our children and communities. Traditional 

knowledge guides our customs, ceremonies, cultural practices, and our individual behaviors to ensure that respect is shown to the land, water, and natural resources 

upon which our people depend. 

Traditional knowledge should not need to be ‘‘proven’’ by western scientific methods and ways of knowing before it is considered in making resource management 

decisions, but oftentimes, our traditional knowledge is disregarded in favor of western scientific predictions and models. For example, in 2017, the Commission and 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife agreed on a conservative harvest of 40,000 Chinook salmon 

during pre-season negotiations and meetings. This harvest estimate was based upon 

the State’s estimated Chinook returns—estimates based wholly on western science. 

However, when the run actually started, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and 

the Commission disagreed about the size and timing of the Chinook salmon run in 

the Kuskokwim River. Real-time western science used by U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

suggested that the Chinook run was weak, whereas real-time traditional knowledge 

suggested that the Chinook run was strong, but returning in ways—running deeper 

in the river, and returning later in the summer—for which western science could 

not account. At the end of the summer, the post-season escapement numbers confirmed that the traditional knowledge advanced by the Commission was correct, and 

there was a surplus of at least 10,000 Chinook salmon. While the conservation of 

59 

these fish was important, those 10,000 fish represent lost opportunity and food security for hundreds of our tribal members. Had our traditional knowledge been fully 

acknowledged and recognized, we would not have lost important fishing opportunity. 

Many people misunderstand traditional knowledge or are confused by what it 

means. Traditional knowledge is holistic. Often one species can be used as an indicator of presence and abundance of a completely different species. Indigenous peoples’ ways of knowing are holistic in nature. What one thinks, what one says, and 

what one does, all has the potential to impact or influence another aspect of one’s 

world. Wasting a resource or treating a resource disrespectfully incurs consequences 

for the individual, those around them, as well as the resource. In comparison, the 

western way of knowing is compartmentalized and specialized, some might say narrow. A western scientific observer may study a particular aspect of the world, like 

salmon run-timing and abundance, take notes, gather data, test hypotheses, confirm 

or formulate new theories, and develop a predicted salmon run forecast for the next 

season based on mathematic models. 

Here are some examples of traditional knowledge. In 2014, my mom’s younger 

brother taught me how to use a little set net to fish for red (sockeye) salmon. We 

went to the mouth of the Gweek River, a small tributary of the Kuskokwim River 

north of Bethel, where his grandparents had their fish camp. He knew exactly 

where to put the net to catch 95 percent reds, and avoid Chinook salmon. Many biologists and fisheries managers imagine that gill nets are indiscriminate killers of 

fish. But if you know where each species tends to swim, if they prefer sandbars, 

slower currents or deeper depths, gill nets can be a very targeted and discreet gear 

type. To me, traditional knowing is having a detailed and deep understanding of an 

ecosystem. My friend Charlie Wright on the Yukon River told me that on his section 

of the Yukon, an indicator of the arrival of Chinook salmon is yellow butterflies. 

When he sees a yellow butterfly, he knows the Chinook salmon are there. He also 

said the abundance of yellow butterflies reflects the abundance of Chinook salmon. 

In 2017 when the Chinook salmon came back in real numbers, there were big 

swarms of butterflies again. These interconnections are inherent to indigenous 

knowledge systems and represent a very different way of viewing the relationship 

between human beings and the natural world compared western science. 

Our Commission’s four In-Season Managers all value the western science that is 

presented by our state and federal managing partners and used to make management decisions. However, our In-Season Managers also recognize the value of traditional knowledge, and know that incorporating traditional knowledge into resource 

management decisionmaking strengthens the end result. 

The Commission’s In-Season Managers are skilled at incorporating western 

science and traditional knowledge into their consideration of management decisions. 

For example, upon receiving a mathematical forecast of the anticipate salmon return, our In-Season Managers will also use other traditional information before deciding when and how long to fish. These additional considerations include observations about river water levels, snow depth of the previous season, height of grasses, 

when shoots of green grass emerge, numbers of migrating birds arriving and when 

they arrive, when mosquitos present themselves, where people have been catching 

certain kinds of fish and which stock of fish are presently migrating, the nature of 

and direction of winds at the river mouth, when cotton flies, when there are storms 

in Kuskokwim Bay, river water temperatures, water clarity, amount of debris floating downriver, anticipated fishing interests, and fish-drying weather conditions, and 

the effect that these interconnected observations have on one another insofar as 

fisheries management is concerned. 

The recognition and incorporation of traditional knowledge is essential in any 

study of climate change in the Kuskokwim River region. Traditional knowledge represents the most significant data set of systematic observations of our ecosystem. 

Question 5. A large part of our discussion today has revolved around the numerous barriers to subsistence activities, particularly focusing on the role of the Federal 

Subsistence Board in management. However, we know that for native communities, 

subsistence activities are an important source of cultural identity and heritage. We 

know that cultural connections including traditional values, customs, activities, and 

ceremonies serve as protective factors in the lives of tribal youth by discouraging 

delinquent behavior, encouraging academic success, and alleviating various 

stressors on native youth. Could you talk about the emotional, spiritual, and cultural toll these barriers to subsistence activities have had on native communities, 

specifically related to native youth? 

Answer. I really think that the restrictions and barriers to subsistence activities 

negatively impacts our youth, in many ways. One way is in the development of work 

ethic. We prepare fish to smoke and dry at fish camp, where there is a role for everyone, no matter what gender or what age., even a 2 or 3-year old has a role to 

60 

1 Harlan JR. 1992. Crops and Man, 2nd Edition. Madison, WI: American Society of Argonomy 

and Crop Science Society of America. Harris DR. 1989. An evolutionary continuum of peopleplant interaction. Pp. 11–26 in DR. Harris and GC Hillman (eds.) Forging and Farming: The 

Evolution of Plant Exploitation. London: Unwin Hyman. 

play in the productivity at fish camp—by retrieving needed objects like nets and 

buckets, for example. Five-year olds can cut notches in salmon belly strips, tie 

strings, or help people apply bug spray. 7, 8, and 9 year olds help inspect drying 

fish for blue fly maggots and remove them. 11 and 12 year olds often help start or 

tend the smoke house fire. It is especially important for teens to experience fish 

camp because that is when you learn your skills and develop confidence. 

When we don’t have family time at fish camp it leaves a void in our family seasonal rounds. The biggest risk in my opinion is to the youngest family members, 

because they miss out on learning about and experiencing the opportunity we’ve always had to instill in them their self-worth and need to be productive. It is at fish 

camp where our youth learn that feeling that their family needs them. I think about 

my cousins and their girls. Their kids (girls and boys) are so proud to show me their 

cuts of salmon and whitefish. It makes such a difference to grow up at fish camp 

and every year, as children learn more, it is truly transformative. 

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY HON. CATHERINE CORTEZ MASTO

TO A-DAE ROMERO-BRIONES

Question 1. Many Tribes are facing additional barriers due to state regulations. 

Indigenous peoples who have practices subsistence fishing and hunting for generations are experiencing large fines for not abiding by state regulation and a seizure 

of goods and supplies necessary for subsistence harvesting at the hands of the state. 

How can the federal government assume and active role in protecting the sovereignty of native peoples and continuing this traditional and what would tribal comanagement over subsistence activities look like? 

Question 1a. How could we balance state interest to protect endangered species 

with tribal rights to subsistence activities? 

Answer. Tribal subsistence hunters, gatherers, and fishermen and women are a 

Tribal nation’s and the United State’s most important conservationists. Their dependence on a resource requires knowledge, management, and protection of that 

very resource. However, subsistence hunting, gathering, and fishing practices are 

not often acknowledged as a conservation or ecological management practices. In 

worst case scenarios, subsistence hunters, gatherers, and fishermen and women are 

labeled ‘‘poachers’’ or ‘‘rule-breakers’’ when subsistence practices, behaviors, and 

timing are not acknowledged or recognized in state hunting, fishing, and gathering 

regulation. More often than not, Tribal Nations’ and state conservation goals are 

often aligned in that both State and Tribal Nations have shared goals of natural 

resource perpetuation for future generations. Unfortunately, Tribal Nations and 

State conservation offices may define ‘‘practicing’’ conservation and resource protection differently. 

In general, many Tribal communities practice conservation through interaction 

with the resource. On the contrary, mainstream conservation efforts almost always 

require resources to ‘‘be left alone’’ or remain untouched. There is some evidence 

that suggests human interactions with nature, that closely imitate natural disturbances have allowed ecosystems to co-evolve with human and thus creating stronger 

eco-systems. 1 M. Kat Anderson and Eric Wholgemuth in an article called California 

Indian Proto-Agriculture: Its Characterization and Legacy state, ‘‘indigenous disturbance was so finely tuned and similar to certain types and scales of natural disturbances that it conserved the renewal capacity of individual plants, populations, 

and whole ecosystems’’ (Pp 204). This ecological knowledge is a critical resource for 

environmental and conservation practices, but in order to maintain this knowledge, 

Indigenous people must be allowed access to ancestral territories and resources to 

practice management in the form of harvesting, hunting, fishing, and gathering. 

There are several Federal actions that can be taken to ensure the continued practice of Indigenous ecological management. 

1) Ensure federal agencies with land holdings in Indigenous ancestral territories have processes for allowing Tribal nations access to those lands. I go 

into more detail about specific processes of federal agencies who have lands 

significant to Indigenous communities in the written comments. 

2) The Multiple Use Sustained Yield Act requires a balance in land use planning among the competing values of recreation, grazing, timber, watershed 

61 

2The Multiple Use—Sustained Yield Act of 1960 (or MUSYA) (Public Law 86–517) is a federal 

law passed by the United States Congress on June 12, 1960. This law authorizes and directs 

the Secretary of Agriculture to develop and administer the renewable resources of timber, range, 

water, recreation and wildlife on the national forests for multiple use and sustained yield of the 

products and services. 3 (7 U.S 7 U.S.C. ch. 94, 7 U.S.C. § 6501 et seq.) and Section 5022 of the USDA–AMS Organic 

Handbook (can be found at: https://www.ams.usda.gov/rules-regulations/organic/handbook/ 

5022) 

protection, wildlife and fish, and wilderness. 2 The Multiple Use Sustained 

Yield Act should be amended to include Tribal nations’ consideration on federal lands within Tribal ancestral territories. 

3) Federal Government should invest in research dollars for documenting and 

strengthening Indigenous conservation and ecological management practices. 

4) Amend the Organic Foods Production Act (OFPA) and subsequent USDA regulations to include Tribal authority where state authority is recognized in the 

act. Specifically, the provision for gathering of wild crops 3 should include 

Tribal consultation. 

There are some co-management examples that offer some promising models. In 

the state of New Mexico, there is a licensing system where Tribal Nations are given 

a certain number of hunting licenses for state hunts. The Tribal Nation in turn uses 

those licenses in an internal process in accordance with their subsistence practices. 

While the model is not perfected, the this model shows that is possible for State 

and Tribal agencies to cooperate within both systems of management. 

We also have co-management examples from the Bureau of Land Management 

(BLM) and the Forest Service where Tribal communities co-manage significant national monuments. For example, there was a co-management agreement between 

Pueblo de Cochiti and Bureau of Land Management over Kasha Katuwe National 

Park. From this model we can glean several lessons: 

1) Tribal Nations should be duly compensated for their expertise and knowledge 

in managing their ancestral homelands. In fact, Indigenous management of 

federal lands often improves the land. Since the federal government is ultimately the land owner, Tribal Nations should be compensated for the improvements. Often, Indigenous land management practices through subsistence are not recognized as land management. 

2) Co-management agreements should mean that Tribal Nations have equal or 

ample authority to manage the land. Often times, co-management agreements give greater power to federal agencies. 

3) Co-management agreements should also be financially sound in that all costs 

of Tribal Nations are adequately covered in order to fully manage and engage 

according to the co-management agreements. Too often, Tribal Nations are 

inadequately compensated to execute co-management agreements, yet expected to fulfill co-management provisions. 

Balancing state interests to protect endangered species and tribal interests to 

practice subsistence activities are often thought of as different goals, but in fact, 

they are often aligned. Indigenous subsistence practitioners, more often than not, 

have vested interest in ensuring endangered animals endure. One perspective is 

that endangered species become endangered because subsistence practices are hampered. While this concept may seem counter-intuitive, it is quite practical to understand species disappearance when animal and plant species are NOT intimately and 

closely monitored. Random and periodic observation are not intimate monitoring. In 

order to intimately and closely monitor animal and plant species, human interaction, if not dependence, on those species are guarantee real time monitoring and 

understanding of the health of specific species. Even more profound is that subsistence practices often require a thorough understanding of ecological relationships. If 

one plant species is endangered, more often than not, the animals and other organisms dependent on that plant is also endangered. However, learning and understanding of ecological relationships requires practice, often over long periods of time. 

Indigenous communities are often the longest standing residents of specific places, 

but their interaction and presence in those lands may be limited by the many barriers already discussed surrounding subsistence practice. These not only damages 

the cultural practices of a people, but on the health of our ecosystems nationally. 

For these reasons, Indigenous subsistence practices should be encouraged and protected in order to ensure endangered species do endure. 

Endangered Species designation and conversations should include Indigenous perspectives whether on boards, in consultation, or in key staff positions where such 

62 

determinations are made. Again, federal investment in ecological management practices, particularly of endangered species, may give new perspectives on endangered 

species recovery, new approaches to recovery, and I would argue, faster recovery 

times. Indigenous people, in their wealth of understanding of the environments that 

they have cultivated for centuries have so much to offer to the world of conservation 

and management. 

Question 2. One of the prominent barriers to subsistence activities is the harmful 

role of climate change in natural ecosystems in Indian Country. We know that when 

lakes and other natural resources are polluted and communities are unable to harvest resources, they lost an important source of nutrition. Have you collected any 

data or research on the relationship between environmental pollution and native 

health in communities that practice subsistence fishing, hunting, or farming? 

Question 2a. If so, can you talk about how native health is impacted by climate 

change? 

Answer. First Nations Development Institute has worked with over 300∂ Tribal 

Nation or Tribal non-profit grantees on Indigenous food systems throughout Indian 

Country. We have collected antidotal information/data on connections between environmental pollution and health or on connections between subsistence practice disruption and the effects on health. We do have information on specific tribal communities who have collected their own empirical data on health and environmental factors such as the Akwesasne Community in New York, the Pueblo de Cochiti in New 

Mexico and the White Earth Community in Minnesota, just to name a few. There 

are several other Tribal specific organizations that collect and analyze such data 

such as the Tribal Epidemiology Center and the Center for Native American Environmental Health Equity Research. 

There are a few conclusions we can make about climate change and native health 

based on the projects that have been funded under the Native Agriculture and Food 

Sovereignty Initiative at First Nations. One, is that subsistence practices are an important process for building the resiliency capacities of Tribal communities, individuals, and surrounding regional communities. Subsistence practices allow Tribal Nations to monitor their environments, take note of the changes in that environment, 

and eventually, adjust behaviors to that changing environment. Two, we know that 

climate change rates are outpacing the rates of adjustment of Tribal Nations. With 

limited access to land bases, disrupted subsistence practices, the ability to move or 

transition to other areas is hampered in Tribal Nations. This causes reliance on outside sources to help Tribal Nations adjust to climate change factors. To bring balance to rates of adjustment and climate changes, it is critical for Tribal Nations to 

be supported in subsistence practice. 

Question 3. I understand that Native populations are the most vulnerable group 

to climate change and that environmental pollution of tribal lands and resources 

generally comes from surrounding businesses, plants, and communities that do not 

belong to the tribal community. What can we do to protect tribal lands from surrounding environmental pollution and what course of action can tribes or the government take against organizations, communities, or individuals who contaminate 

tribal lands? 

Question 3a. How can traditional knowledge help address climate change impacts 

facing tribes? Do you think western science takes your suggestions seriously? 

Answer. Surrounding environmental pollution is always a concern for Tribal communities. Over the course of development of Tribal law, there have been innovative 

and effective mechanisms to hinder surrounding environmental pollution. Unfortunately, many of those mechanisms and tools have been undermined in the last few 

years. Perhaps the best example of controlling surrounding environmental pollution 

is the Clean Water Act (CWA), The Clean Air Act (CAA), Clean Water Act (CWA), 

and Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA). These statutes allow Tribal Nations to set 

environmental quality standards and to implement strategies to meet those standards. These acts should be protected, used as models for other pieces of environmental legislation, and expanded in other environmental quality statutes. These 

acts can be strengthened in that rather than having Tribal Nations apply for status 

as States, status as state should be assumed unless a Tribal Nations opts out of 

such treatment. 

Additionally, Tribal Courts should be recognized as having the authority to prosecute environmental pollution on Tribal lands. It has taken an act of Congress to 

acknowledge Tribal court jurisdiction over non-Indian perpetrators of domestic violence. A similar action should be taken to acknowledge Tribal jurisdiction over nonIndian perpetrators of environmental population. 

As stated earlier, subsistence practices ensure resiliency in Tribal Nations specifically in response to climate change. In order for the development of climate change 

63 

resiliency, it is critical for Tribal Nations to practice subsistence. There are currently so many barriers to subsistence practice such as land access, transference of 

traditional knowledge, rates of climate change, prosecution of Indigenous subsistence practitioners under state hunting/gathering/fishing laws that subsistence practice is hampered, thereby weakening a community’s ability to respond to climate 

change. 

Western Science, often, dismisses subsistence practices. Hunting, gathering, and 

fishing are often viewed as a ‘‘lesser’’ form of existence than efficient market systems where a person has to work less for more. However, subsistence practices often 

ensure that demand doesn’t outpace supply in that demand is directly tied to hard 

work, ecological understandings, and direct interactions with natural resources. In 

short, subsistence practices have to be balanced within the environments and natural 

resources that support those practices, humans being included in those environments. Federal investment into documenting these concepts would have far reaching 

consequences for not only Indigenous communities, but for our larger national approach to conservation. 

Question 4. A large part of our discussion today has revolved around the numerous barriers to subsistence activities, particularly focusing on the role of the Federal 

Subsistence Board in management. However, we know that for native communities 

subsistence activities are an important source of cultural identity and heritage. We 

know that cultural connections including traditional values, customs, activities, and 

ceremonies serve as protective factors in the lives of tribal youth by discouraging 

delinquent behavior, encouraging academic success, and alleviating various 

stressors on native youth. Could you talk about the emotional, spiritual, and cultural toll these barriers to subsistence activities have had on native communities, 

specifically related to native youth? 

Answer. While I am not a mental health expert, I can relate to the question 

through personal experience as a once native youth who comes from a community 

where barriers to subsistence farming disrupted my entire community’s way of life. 

Within a period of ten years, the ill social effects of losing a Pueblo lifestyle, based 

on subsistence farming, were raging in my community. The loss of a life way, a connection to ancestral ties, changes in diet, and a dependence on sources of food outside of one’s one community and hands, is unquantifiable, but can be seen in the 

detrimental health and social ills that have come to characterize many Tribal Nations. 

As one might predict, a community not only struggles with the loss, but also has 

to determine a substitute for that loss. During that period of transition, many young 

people struggle with a sense of identity because often identity is transmitted from 

one generation to the next through subsistence activities. Subsistence activities offer 

young people orientation and a place in the world. For example, in Cochiti, young 

people cultivate corn. It teaches young people how to care for life, learn the seasons 

of our community and environment, understand community behaviors and ceremony, and become part of something larger than oneself. When agriculture was disrupted in Cochiti because of a loss of agricultural lands, young people had to learn 

all these lessons somewhere else, if we learned these lessons at all after agricultural 

disruption. In short, an efficient social food-system, deliberately cultivated over generations that synchronized our existence with our environment, is usually replaced 

with systems less powerful. As one might imagine, the effects on young people is 

simply struggle or a need to leave their home base to find a life outside of the community to fill that loss. In all cases, self-identity suffers and, in turn, the community 

suffers, and lastly, our environments suffer. 

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY HON. CATHERINE CORTEZ MASTO

TO JENNIFER HARDIN, PH.D. 

Question 1. Many tribes are facing additional barriers due to state regulations. 

Indigenous peoples who have practiced subsistence fishing and hunting for generations are experiencing large fines for not abiding by state regulations and a seizure 

of goods and supplies necessary for subsistence harvesting at the hands of the state. 

How can the Federal Government assume an active role in protecting the sovereignty of native peoples and continuing this tradition and what would tribal comanagement over subsistence activities look like? 

Answer. Title VIII of the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act 

(ANILCA) dictates that the subsistence harvest of fish and wildlife is the priority 

consumptive use on Federal public lands in Alaska. This means that in the event 

that there are not enough resources to meet the harvest demands of all users, only 

64 

Federally-qualified rural residents (both Native and non-Native) may hunt or fish 

on Federal lands under Federal regulations, and that Federal public lands are 

closed to all other consumptive uses. In these instances, state regulations no longer 

apply on Federal public lands. While some subsistence users may find this type of 

dual management system to be confusing at times, it can also be quite protective 

of the hunting and fishing practices that are central to the Native and non-Native 

rural subsistence way of life in Alaska by ensuring that these practices can continue 

on Federal public lands even if state mandates or priorities differ. The Federal Subsistence Board’s charge is to act on behalf of rural subsistence users in providing 

for the subsistence priority on Federal public lands, per the ANILCA mandate. The 

State of Alaska is not obligated under the law to carry out this same mandate. 

ANILCA outlines the regulatory decisionmaking structure for subsistence harvest 

on Federal public lands in Alaska. Federal subsistence regulatory decisions are the 

responsibility of the Secretaries of the Interior and Agriculture and the ten Subsistence Regional Advisory Councils. Subsistence Regional Advisory Councils are composed of representatives who are knowledgeable about subsistence issues in their respective regions and are appointed by the Secretaries. Many Regional Advisory 

Council members are Alaska Native. 

The Secretaries have delegated regulatory decisionmaking authority related to the 

subsistence take of fish and wildlife to the Federal Subsistence Board (Board). In 

turn, the Board is statutorily required to defer to the recommendations of the Subsistence Regional Advisory Councils unless recommendations are not supported by 

substantial evidence, violate recognized principles of fish and wildlife conservation, 

or would be detrimental to the satisfaction of subsistence needs. The subsistence decisionmaking structure outlined in ANILCA is designed to ensure that the Federal 

Subsistence Management Program is characterized by a bottom-up approach that is 

primarily driven by the concerns of the rural Alaskans who will be directly affected 

by Board decisions. 

Currently, ‘‘co-management’’ is not defined in relation to the subsistence provisions contained in Title VIII of ANILCA. It is assumed that any future proposed 

Federal subsistence co-management structures would conform to the provisions of 

Title VIII of ANILCA, which define the subsistence priority for rural Alaskans 

throughout the state. 

Question 1a. How could we balance state interest to protect endangered species 

with tribal rights to subsistence activities? 

Answer. The Federal Subsistence Management Program in Alaska provides a good 

model for balancing subsistence opportunity with conservation of healthy populations of fish and wildlife in order to ensure the continuation of the subsistence 

way of life for future generations. Striking this balance requires close collaboration 

between rural subsistence users, the Federal Subsistence Board, Federal land management agencies and the State of Alaska. In accordance with Section 815(4) of 

ANILCA, the endangered species program is not administered by the Federal Subsistence Management Program. At this time, no subsistence resources managed by 

the Federal Subsistence Management Program are listed as endangered species. 

Question 2. One of the prominent barriers to subsistence activities is the harmful 

role of climate change in natural ecosystems in Indian Country. We know that when 

lakes and other natural resources are polluted and communities are unable to harvest resources, they lose an important source of nutrition. Have you collected any 

data or research on the relationship between environmental pollution and native 

health in communities that practice subsistence fishing, hunting, or farming? If so, 

can you talk about how native health is impacted by climate change? 

Answer. This is an important issue of concern for subsistence users in rural Alaska but it is not an area of research that is within the purview of the Federal Subsistence Management Program. The Federal Subsistence Management Program provides funding for fisheries research through the Fisheries Resource Monitoring Program. Research conducted through that program examines, among other issues, the 

health of subsistence fisheries throughout Alaska, including the impact of changing 

environmental conditions on subsistence fish populations. 

The Office of Subsistence Management also administers the Partners for Fisheries 

Monitoring Program (Partners Program) on behalf of the Federal Subsistence Management Program. The Partners Program is a competitive grant program directed 

at providing funding for biologist, social scientist, and educator positions in Alaska 

Native and rural organizations with the intent of building capacity in rural Alaska 

to actively participate in Federal subsistence management. 

Question 3. I understand that Native populations are the most vulnerable group 

to climate change and that environmental pollution of tribal lands and resources 

generally comes from surrounding businesses, plants, and communities that do not 

65 

belong to the tribal community. What can we do to protect tribal lands from surrounding environmental pollution and what course of action can tribes or the government take against organizations, communities, or individual who contaminate 

tribal lands? 

Answer. The situation in Alaska is unique in that more than 50 percent of lands 

within the state are managed by the Federal government and subject to the subsistence priority afforded by Title VIII of the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA). In accordance with Section 810 of ANILCA, Federal agencies are 

required to evaluate and minimize the potential effects of other uses or activities 

on subsistence uses prior to authorizing such actions on Federal lands. All other 

lands within the State of Alaska, including those belonging to Alaska Native Claims 

Settlement Act (ANCSA) Corporations, fall under state jurisdiction. 

Question 3a. How can traditional knowledge help address climate change impacts 

facing tribes? Do you think western science takes your suggestions seriously? 

Answer. The Federal Subsistence Management Program recognizes the critical 

importance of local and traditional ecological knowledge in informing decisions 

about subsistence harvest by rural Alaskans. The Federal Subsistence Board 

(Board) relies on the knowledge shared by local people and strives to consider it equitably alongside of western scientific knowledge. Because traditional ecological 

knowledge is obtained through systematic observations and repeated interactions 

with the natural world over long spans of time, it can be particularly useful in assessing the impacts of environmental change on the natural resources that subsistence users depend upon. Traditional ecological knowledge often provides a spatial 

and temporal scale that is otherwise unavailable to resource managers. 

The Board strives to obtain traditional ecological knowledge from a variety of 

sources in an effort to inform management decisions. All staff analyses of wildlife 

and fishery proposals to change Federal subsistence regulations, make customary 

and traditional use determinations, and rural determination proposals incorporate 

available traditional ecological knowledge to help the Board better understand subsistence resources and the people who depend on them. The Federal Subsistence 

Management Program consults with local federally recognized tribes on proposals 

that might impact their members, and incorporates the knowledge learned during 

those consultations. The Subsistence Regional Advisory Council system provides a 

direct conduit of traditional ecological knowledge in the decisionmaking process. The 

Board considers traditional ecological knowledge along with biological and 

sociocultural data when making decisions about the take of fish and wildlife on Federal public lands. 

Question 4. A large part of our discussion today has revolved around the numerous barriers to subsistence activities, particularly focusing on the role of the Federal 

Subsistence Board in management. However, we know that for native communities 

subsistence activities are an important source of cultural identity and heritage. We 

know that cultural connections including traditional values, customs, activities, and 

ceremonies serve as protective factors in the lives of tribal youth by discouraging 

delinquent behavior, encouraging academic success, and alleviating various 

stressors on native youth. Could you talk about the emotional, spiritual, and cultural toll these barriers to subsistence activities have had on native communities, 

specifically related to native youth? 

Answer. In Title VIII of ANILCA, Congress found that the continuation of the 

subsistence way of life by rural Alaskans is essential to their physical, economic, 

traditional, cultural and social existence. Title VIII established a priority for the 

taking of fish and wildlife for nonwasteful subsistence purposes on Federal public 

lands in Alaska over the taking of those resources for other purposes. In ANILCA, 

Congress recognized the vital relationships between people, land and cultural identity that are reflected in subsistence hunting and fishing practices in rural Alaska. 

These practices are part of a community’s cultural, social, economic, and nutritional 

wellbeing. The Federal Subsistence Management Program’s focus on the 

sociocultural aspects of subsistence activities distinguishes it from other hunting 

and fishing programs. 

The Federal Subsistence Management Program tries to facilitate the continuation 

of cultural practice associated with the subsistence way of life in rural Alaska by 

supporting culture camps designed to pass on important cultural knowledge to future generations, providing for community harvest systems that are organized and 

managed by communities according to customary and traditional practices and offering the ability to harvest fish or wildlife outside of established season or harvest 

limits, for food in traditional religious ceremonies, including potlaches. 

The Federal Subsistence Management Program regularly conducts outreach to 

connect with rural youth. For example, the program offers presentations and workVerDate Mar 15 2010 11:12 Dec 27, 2018 Jkt 033836 PO 00000 Frm 00069 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 S:\DOCS\33836.TXT JACK
66 

shops within rural village schools in conjunction with Subsistence Regional Advisory 

Council meetings and often holds those meetings within village schools so youth 

may attend and participate. Engagement with rural youth during meetings allows 

for council members to interact and influence the next generation, securing the subsistence way of life for the future. The Federal Subsistence Management Program 

regularly holds an art contest focusing on wildlife and fish related subsistence activities for all students in Alaska in grades K–12. 

The Federal Subsistence Board, Subsistence Regional Advisory Councils, and the 

Office of Subsistence Management will continue to seek additional mechanisms to 

increase youth involvement in the Federal Subsistence Management Program to 

support generations of conservation leaders. These future leaders will protect the 

continuation of the opportunity for subsistence uses on federal lands, which is essential to the physical, traditional, cultural, and social existence of rural residents in 

Alaska. This unique existence has withstood natural, institutional, and social challenges for many generations. 

*RESPONSES TO THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS WERE NOT AVAILABLE 

AT THE TIME THIS HEARING WENT TO PRINT* 

WRITTEN QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY HON. CATHERINE CORTEZ MASTO TO

HON. ROY B. BROWN

Question 1. Many tribes are facing additional barriers due to state regulations. 

Indigenous peoples who have practiced subsistence fishing and hunting for generations are experiencing large fines for not abiding by state regulations and a seizure 

of goods and supplies necessary for subsistence harvesting at the hands of the state. 

How can the federal government assume an active role in protecting the sovereignty 

of native peoples and continuing this tradition and what would tribal co-management over subsistence activities look like? 

How could we balance state interest to protect endangered species with tribal 

rights to subsistence activities? 

Question 2. One of the prominent barriers to subsistence activities is the harmful 

role of climate change in natural ecosystems in Indian Country. We know that when 

lakes and other natural resources are polluted and communities are unable to harvest resources, they lose an important source of nutrition? 

Have you collected any data or research on the relationship between environmental pollution and native health in communities that practice subsistence fishing, 

hunting, or farming? 

If so, can you talk about how native health is impacted by climate change? 

Question 3. I understand that Native populations are the most vulnerable group 

to climate change and that environmental pollution of tribal lands and resources 

generally comes from surrounding businesses, plants, and communities that do not 

belong to the tribal community. What can we do to protect tribal lands from surrounding environmental pollution and what course of action can tribes or the government take against organizations, communities, or individual who contaminate 

tribal lands? 

How can traditional knowledge help address climate change impacts facing tribes? 

Do you think western science takes your suggestions seriously? 

Question 4. A large part of our discussion today has revolved around the numerous barriers to subsistence activities, particularly focusing on the role of the Federal 

Subsistence Board in management. However, we know that for native communities 

subsistence activities are an important source of cultural identity and heritage. We 

know that cultural connections including traditional values, customs, activities, and 

ceremonies serve as protective factors in the lives of tribal youth by discouraging 

delinquent behavior, encouraging academic success, and alleviating various 

stressors on native youth. Could you talk about the emotional, spiritual, and cultural toll these barriers to subsistence activities have had on native communities, 

specifically related to native youth? 

Æ