U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402–0001

79–754 PDF 2002

S. HRG. 107–456

ALASKA NATIVE SUBSISTENCE AND FISHING

RIGHTS

HEARING

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON INDIAN AFFAIRS

UNITED STATES SENATE

ONE HUNDRED SEVENTH CONGRESS

SECOND SESSION

TO RECEIVE TESTIMONY ON SUBSISTENCE HUNTING AND FISHING BY

THE NATIVE ALASKANS

APRIL 17, 2002

WASHINGTON, DC

(
COMMITTEE ON INDIAN AFFAIRS

DANIEL K. INOUYE, Hawaii, Chairman

BEN NIGHTHORSE CAMPBELL, Colorado, Vice Chairman

FRANK MURKOWSKI, Alaska

JOHN McCAIN, Arizona,

PETE V. DOMENICI, New Mexico

CRAIG THOMAS, Wyoming

ORRIN G. HATCH, Utah

JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma

KENT CONRAD, North Dakota

HARRY REID, Nevada

DANIEL K. AKAKA, Hawaii

PAUL WELLSTONE, Minnesota

BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota

TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota

MARIA CANTWELL, Washington

PATRICIA M. ZELL, Majority Staff Director/Chief Counsel

PAUL MOOREHEAD, Minority Staff Director/Chief Counsel

(II)
(III)

C O N T E N T S

Page

Statements:

Anderson, Robert, assistant professor of law, director, Native American

Law Center, University of Washington School of Law................................... 3, 7

Akootchook, Isaac, elder, North Slope Region, Alaska .................................. 6

Campbell, Hon. Ben Nighthorse, U.S. Senator from Colorado, vice chairman, Committee on Indian Affairs .............................................................. 38

Demientieff, Mitch, chairman, Federal Subsistence Board ........................... 32

Golia, Andy, vice president, Bristol Bay Native Association ........................ 12

Inouye, Hon. Daniel K., U.S. Senator from Hawaii, chairman, Committee

on Indian Affairs ........................................................................................... 1

Jackson, Gordon, executive director, Southeast Alaska Intertribal Fish

and Wildlife Commission .............................................................................. 19

Johnson, Charles, executive director, Alaska Nanuuq Commission ............ 17

Kennedy, Jeanine, executive director, Rural Alaska Community Action

Program, Inc. ................................................................................................. 23

Kitka, Julie, president, Alaska Federation of Natives .................................. 27

Lake, Arthur, president, Association of Village Council Presidents ............ 14

Murkowski, Hon. Frank H., U.S. Senator from Alaska ................................ 1

Norbert, Eileen, executive vice president, Kawerak, Inc............................... 23, 25

Pete, Mary, director, Division of Subsistence, Alaska Department of Fish

and Game ...................................................................................................... 28

Williams, Mike, chairman, Alaska Inter-Tribal Council ............................... 20

Worl, Rosita, chair, Subsistence Committee, Alaska Federation of Natives, president, Sealaska Heritage Foundation ......................................... 3

Yaska, George, fisheries specialist, Tanana Chief Conference ..................... 16

APPENDIX

Prepared statements:

Anderson, Robert .............................................................................................. 45

Bullard, Loretta, president, Kawerak Inc. (with attachments) .................... 149

Demientieff, Mitch ............................................................................................ 142

Fleagle, Hon. Donne, president, Board of Directors, Rural Alaska Community Action Program, Inc. ........................................................................ 106

Golia, Andy ....................................................................................................... 74

Huhndorf, Roy, cochairman, Alaska Federation of Natives (with attachments) ............................................................................................................ 170

Iyatunguk, Robert, chairman, Karwerka Elders Advisory Committee ........ 178

Johnson, Charles .............................................................................................. 102

Kookesh, Albert, cochairman, Alaska Federation of Natives ........................ 181

Lake, Arthur (with attachments) .................................................................... 83

Miller, William, Dot Lake Village Council (with attachments) .................... 156

Minard, Kris ...................................................................................................... 187

Norbert, Eileen ................................................................................................. 189

Pete, Mary (with attachments) ........................................................................ 112

Schwalenberg, Dewey, director, Stevens Village Tribal Natural Resource/

Environmental Program ............................................................................... 192

Williams, Mike .................................................................................................. 104

Worl, Rosita ...................................................................................................... 41

Yaska, George ................................................................................................... 97
Page

IV

Additional material submitted for the record:

Letters from:

Hahn, Richard ................................................................................................... 197

Metz, Michele .................................................................................................... 199

Mills, Mary Ann ................................................................................................ 200

Temple, Lillian White, member, Elderly Organization, Rock Creek ............ 201

Tiepelman, Dennis J., president, Maniilaq Association ................................ 202

Articles:

Congress to Hear Subsistence Issue, Tom Kizzia, Anchorage Daily News . 213

Urban Alaskans Get Shot at Subsistence, Tom Kizzia, Anchorage Daily

News ............................................................................................................... 215
(1)

ALASKA NATIVE SUBSISTENCE AND FISHING

RIGHTS

WEDNESDAY, APRIL 17, 2002

U.S. SENATE,

COMMITTEE ON INDIAN AFFAIRS, Washington, DC.

The committee met pursuant to notice at 2:02 p.m. in room 485,

Senate Russell Building, Hon. Daniel K. Inouye (chairman of the

committee) presiding.

Present: Senators Inouye, Campbell, and Murkowski.

STATEMENT OF HON. DANIEL K. INOUYE, U.S. SENATOR FROM

HAWAII, CHAIRMAN, COMMITTEE ON INDIAN AFFAIRS

The CHAIRMAN. Before proceeding, I would like to advise one and

all that there will be a roundtable discussion on subsistence hunting and fishing issues in Alaska immediately following this oversight hearing in this room.

The committee meets this afternoon to receive testimony on subsistence hunting and fishing by the native people of Alaska. Long

before the United States was formed, the native people of Alaska

were providing for sustenance of their children and families. But

basic sustenance was not the only objective of subsistence hunting

and fishing by the native people. It also served as a fundamental

aspect of native culture, native traditions, religious and spiritual

beliefs, as well as a way of life that had been practiced for centuries.

Today, we will learn how the subsistence hunting and fishing by

Alaska Natives is faring in contemporary times as the United

States and the State of Alaska seek to address the provisions of

Federal law, the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act,

and title VIII of that act which addresses subsistence uses.

So with that, I would like to recognize Senator Murkowski of

Alaska.

STATEMENT OF HON. FRANK H. MURKOWSKI, U.S. SENATOR

FROM ALASKA

Senator MURKOWSKI. Thank you very much, Senator Inouye. I

want to welcome the Alaskans that are here. You have come at a

very auspicious time. As you probably know, we are debating the

ANWR issue on the floor of the U.S. Senate right now. I just relieved Senator Stevens, so I am going to have to welcome you with

a short message and then get back. For those of you who would

like to observe the process, it is going to be extremely lengthy. We
2

anticipate that it will be going well into the evening. If you would

like to come into the family gallery, why, we would be happy to invite you to participate in the process.

Some have said that legislation is like making sausage—it is not

a pretty sight. I suppose that is appropriate. On the other hand,

for those of you who have traveled so far, we can greet you with

probably the warmest day of the year. So I would suggest, Mr.

Chairman, that Alaska is in the frying pan in one way or another

here, not only on this subsistence issue which has been around a

long time, and which we hope we will be able to resolve through

unity in Alaska, as well as the reality that ANWR has been around

here for a long time.

First, in welcoming my fellow Alaskans, I want to compliment

the chairman, my good friend, who has been with us on Alaska

issues historically, and made I thought an extraordinary speech

about 3 days ago supporting Alaska’s effort to open up its land area

for the benefit of the people of Alaska and the United States as a

whole. So I want to comment you, Senator Inouye, for your support.

I look forward to the testimony that each of you is prepared to

address, and hope this forum can move us forward toward a solution on the subsistence dilemma that we have been facing for a

long time. I think we all share a common interest in bringing resolution of this problem. Decisions on how we manage subsistence in

Alaska affect not only subsistence users, but commercial, sport,

recreation, fishermen as well, and those who gather and other subsistence users. The only way we are going to find a solution is by

working together. We need all the stakeholders together to find

that lasting solution, and this committee I think will go a long way

in assisting in the careful consideration of the views of each group

that will potentially be affected by any subsistence policy.

For this reason, I would ask that the record remain open until

those organizations who have had a chance to submit their written

testimony for the record have that opportunity.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much. I am pleased to advise my

colleague from Alaska that the record will remain open for at least

2 weeks.

Senator MURKOWSKI. That is fine. I certainly appreciate that. We

have had an indication of several groups that would like to have

testimony submitted for the record.

Finally, clearly we need a subsistence solution that does not discriminate or divide the people of Alaska on the basis of race or culture. We need a solution that is inclusive of all people and cultures

in Alaska. I believe the intent of our Alaska State Constitution was

basically to accomplish this inclusiveness. I believe the intent of

ANILCA was to accomplish this as well. Unfortunately, the problem we often have is in the details. It has been said the devil or

someone else lies in there, but there are discrepancies between the

two and we need to identify those as much as possible today.

I think our mission is to both amend the State Constitution,

which I strongly support, and come up with some clear and specific

definitions to the vague language in ANILCA, the source of many

of the problems that are being addressed here today, and clearly

the court has not helped us in those determinations because it is
3

still very unclear. Amending title VIII of ANILCA is crucial if we

are to reconcile Federal statute with existing State law.

In any case, I want management of all Alaska’s fish and wildlife

resources put back in the hands of Alaska. I grew up in Alaska and

remember the management regime of the Department of the Interior, where the management scheme was one size fits all. It did not

work. We had our fishermen on self-imposed limits in Southeastern

Alaska. I think it is mandatory that all Alaskans work together to

get back the management of these renewable resources.

Most importantly, I want to see clearly defined and enforceable

rural preference for subsistence hunting and fishing, one that is legally sound and one that is fair to all Alaskans. As I mentioned

earlier, I want to look forward to hearing the testimony you will

receive today. I remain committed to finding a solution to the subsistence questions in Alaska, and I certainly thank the Chairman

for the opportunity to welcome our Alaskans here this afternoon.

I shall be looking forward to reviewing your testimony as soon

as I am able, and I trust that you will excuse me, Mr. Chairman,

as I return with Senator Stevens to the floor as we continue the

process of trying to resolve one of Alaska’s longstanding issues.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN. May I call upon the first panel, consisting of Dr.

Rosita Worl, chair of the Subsistence Committee of the Alaska Federation of Natives and president of the Sealaska Heritage Foundation of Juneau, AK, who will be accompanied by Professor Robert

Anderson, director, Native American Law Center of the University

of Washington School of Law in Seattle; and an elder from the

North Slope region of Alaska, Isaac Akootchook.

Dr. Worl, you are always welcome here.

STATEMENT OF ROSITA WORL, CHAIR, SUBSISTENCE COMMITTEE, ALASKA FEDERATION OF NATIVES; PRESIDENT,

SEALASKA HERITAGE FOUNDATION, ACCOMPANIED BY ROBERT ANDERSON, DIRECTOR, NATIVE AMERICAN LAW CENTER, UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON SCHOOL OF LAW

Ms. WORL. Thank you, Honorable Senator Inouye.

Thank you very much for agreeing to hold this hearing on subsistence in Alaska. What I would like to do today is to talk about

the significance of subsistence in the contemporary period. But first

of all before I begin that, Senator, what I would like to do is to

present you with this photo right here in front of the table. The

photo is Pauline and Joe Agothlik of Imanuk. What I would like

to do is to really bring the people of Alaska here and the essence

of Alaska. Here, they are sharing in a fish that was received from

the State. We really want to talk about the kinds of things that we

are facing today in Alaska, the kinds of shortages and the difficulties some of our people are experiencing.

For the record, I am Rosita Worl and I am the chair of the AFN

Subsistence Committee. My testimony today will be drawing from

my professional background and also my personal experience as a

Tlingit Indian.

It has often been said that subsistence cannot be defined, but

Alaska Native people will define it as a way of life. What I would

like to do today is to look at the components of subsistence—what
4

really makes up subsistence. It may begin to sound like a lecture,

and for that I apologize. But also in the need for brevity, it may

seem as if I am oversimplifying this very complex system. However,

it is my sense, as you have stated, that we must have a basic understanding of the dynamic socioeconomic subsistence system in

order to analyze how legislation has the capacity to undermine or

to protect subsistence.

First of all, I want to assure you, as you have already stated,

Alaska Native cultures are vibrant. They remain vibrant in this

contemporary period. They also remain very dependent and culturally attached to the hunting and fishing way of life. Subsistence

as it is practiced by Alaska Native people is comprised of three

major interrelated components: economic, social and cultural. It operates as a cohesive, adaptive and functioning system. The cultural

component includes the values and ideologies that govern and direct subsistence behavior and activities.

For example, and this is the one I want to stress, it is the value

of sharing. Sharing is key to subsistence and is key to the survival

of native societies. Young hunters are taught to share from a very

early age. Also, significant amounts of sharing takes place in our

ceremonies. The elders also play a very important role in our subsistence economy, not only in terms of teaching the young, but also

they receive a special share and portion of the subsistence take. In

this way, it functions very much like our Social Security system.

The cultural component also is comprised of our beliefs and

ideologies. Here is where we differ from the larger society and the

rest of Alaskan society in that Alaska Native people believe that

they have a spiritual relationship to the animals and to the wildlife. This relationship requires native people to adhere to certain

codes of conduct and to treat animals in prescriptive ways to ensure success in future hunts.

The social aspect refers to the way in which native people organize themselves to participate in subsistence activities. The socioeconomic organization is based on some form of kinship. More often

you will hear our people referring to it as the extended family as

the hunting unit. The important dimension here is that subsistence

operates as a group activity, rather than that of a sole hunter pursuing game.

The third element includes the economic aspect, which consists

of production, distribution and exchange, and utilization of natural

resources. Production includes the procurement and preservation of

subsistence food, while distribution and exchange refers to the

movement of subsistence goods or the sharing of subsistence food

through the social network.

Subsistence economies also include the exchange of surplus resources for resources that may not be readily or locally available.

Utilization includes the food consumption as well as the utilization

of the by-parts for arts and crafts or for other sorts of equipment

that the hunters and gathers may need, such as skins for the skin

boats.

Alaska rural communities are also characterized by a mixed or

dual economy. What do we mean by that? In today’s subsistence

economy, cash is an absolute requirement. It is necessary to purchase rifles, ammo and other tools, supplies and equipment. Cash
5

is acquired in multiple ways in this socioeconomic unit. The hunter

or spouse may be a full-or part-time wage earner or a family member may earn income through the sale of arts and craft or a subsistence service. An elderly member of the unit may also receive a

transfer payment and they may then contribute portions of this

cash to the subsistence enterprise.

The importance of the subsistence economy in Alaska today cannot be overstated. It provides a major portion of the diet in rural

Alaska and in native households. Subsistence can be seen as even

more important with the absence or the limited wage income opportunities in rural Alaska and also its seasonal nature. The limitations on wage income opportunities are further exacerbated by

the highest cost of living within the United States. Without a subsistence economy, hunger would be the norm in Alaska Native and

rural communities. These assertions are all verifiable by hard statistical data.

The persistence of the subsistence lifestyle, however, cannot be

attributed solely to the absence or the constraints on the wage opportunities. The social, cultural and ideological aspects remain important to native people and they choose to adhere to their traditional way of being of their lifestyle. So these are also aspects that

continue to make subsistence very important to native people

today.

I wanted to stress two basic differences between Alaska Natives

and the other Alaskans or other people who use resources in Alaska. One I have already talked about—the special spiritual relationship that native people have to the wildlife. The second, and this

is really very important in terms of understanding subsistence and

understanding why ANILCA is so important to Alaska Native people. And that is the group orientation that native people have, as

opposed to the individualistic values of the larger societies.

Native cultural and religious values can sometimes be protected

under the freedom of religion policies and laws. We saw that in

Alaska in the Carlos Frank case, where a hunter, where the

Athabascans needed a moose for a funerary ceremony, and they

took a moose out of season. There was a case brought, but because

of the freedom of religion they were not charged or were not found

guilty in this case.

Laws embody the values of their societies and American law generally reflects the individualistic nature of this society, rather than

the group orientation of Native societies. American values, however, recognize the importance of cultural diversities, and theoretically our laws and policies embrace this ideology of cultural diversity. But this does not mean that the laws themselves will reflect

the group orientation values held by Alaska Natives and American

Indians.

However, the Federal Government does accord Alaska Natives

and American Indians a special political status which offers the opportunity to acknowledge and protect the different cultural values

and Alaska Native societies. Alaska Natives and their cultural values and subsistence were made possible in part through the Alaskan National Interest Land Conversation Act of 1980. ANILCA has

offered the only measure of protection for subsistence against the

State of Alaska, which has refused to recognize a rural subsistence
6

hunting and fishing priority. Title VIII of ANILCA requires that

subsistence uses be given priority over the taking of fish and wildlife for other purposes. It defines subsistence uses as the customary

and traditional uses by rural Alaska residents.

ANILCA provides a priority for rural residents of communities

that have customary and traditional uses of a particular resource.

As an anthropologist, I know the significance of ANILCA is that it

provides protections for communities or for groups, rather than the

individually based uses and protections based on customary and

traditional uses.

The prevalent argument advanced by a small, but vocal and successful minority of Alaskans, is to oppose a constitutional amendment because it violates the equal access to fish and wildlife. However, in my testimony I have tried to stress the importance of understanding not only the subsistence lifestyle and culture, but also

it is important to assess the underlying meaning of the equal access argument as it is advanced by the subsistence opponents, and

to understand the potential ramifications should they be successful

in amending ANILCA to embrace this ideology and to extinguish

the group orientation and the group protections as offered under

ANILCA.

ANILCA as it is written protects the group realities—the nature

of Alaska Native subsistence activities. I will pray that Congress

will not condone the further erosion of subsistence and cultural

protections for its indigenous people. I would hope that Congress

will see that ANILCA is a means to ensure the cultural survival

of Alaska Natives and to maintain the rich cultural diversity of this

country.

I would hope that Congress will continue to support and urge the

State of Alaska to advance a constitutional amendment that brings

it into compliance with ANILCA. It would be my hope, Senator,

that Congress will continue to support ANILCA as it is written unless in its wisdom it should choose to adopt a Native subsistence

priority.

Thank you, Senator.

[Prepared statement of Ms. Worl appears in appendix.]

The CHAIRMAN. I thank you, Dr. Worl.

May I now recognize Mr. Akootchook.

STATEMENT OF ISAAC AKOOTCHOOK, ELDER, NORTH SLOPE

REGION OF ALASKA

Mr. AKOOTCHOOK. My name is Isaac Akootchook. I was born in

Takdorik and I have been there 80 years. So I have a birthday on

March 31, just only 17 days ago.

I am surprised to be here to sit over here in front of you, Senator, the first time I have a trip to Washington, DC.

Thank you very much for letting me through the Osloburro hunting. We have a whaling inberro starting in this month, and

Tannooslo, my representative from all the way from St. Lawrence

Island, Tivalina, Quint Hope, Enright, and Barrow. In that way, he

sent me down here to speak in front of you people.

Our life is since I have a recollection since we have born, to take

other animals, how we are used for living. We are learning, and

again is to go with these people, have a law, recollections in our
7

life. And I am not really a good speaker in English because I am

Inuit and never went to school either. But I have just this morning

to try to help my North Slope people. Native people all over have

used this land all its life. That is what I speak about. And again,

many times we see the law recollection to make it to the animal.

I always say about those collars that they put animals—too many,

too many collars. And they say, I try to study animal; how far from

the direction to all the way to somewhere to study. This is really

kind of animal suffering, because polar bears, caribou, and all that

things. That is what we use for food for our native people, and nobody much say about it, but we have seen it quite a few times. And

those animals, sometimes they have suffering.

We have many things, and he goes through that. I heard sisters

speaking here, and I really agree with your speaking because this

is a native culture and all that thinking.

Thank you very much. I am end speaking.

The CHAIRMAN. I thank you very much.

Mr. Anderson, would you care to add something?

STATEMENT OF ROBERT ANDERSON, ASSISTANT PROFESSOR

OF LAW, DIRECTOR, NATIVE AMERICAN LAW CENTER, UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON SCHOOL OF LAW

Mr. ANDERSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I was asked to address two areas: First, the background material

leading to the subsistence law as we see it today reflected in title

VIII; and second, the authority of Congress as a matter of constitutional law to provide for a native priority or a rural priority in combination with the native priority on all lands in Alaska, the thinking being that given the State legislature in particular’s failure to

get back in compliance with ANILCA over the last 12 years, that

this is an option that should be considered. I have been asked to

write a paper on this, which I have done and it is submitted as

part of the record, and also to make myself available to your staff

and anyone else who would like to discuss these issues further.

Just a thumbnail sketch of the Federal Government’s treatment

of hunting and fishing rights in Alaska can begin with the Treaty

of Cession which essentially left the law in place with respect to

aboriginal or native hunting and fishing rights as they were exercised in Alaska by native people since before the Russian arrival

and long before the Treaty of Cession.

A series of statutes passed by Congress beginning in 1870 and

through the early 1930’s provided native exemptions from regulations governing the taking of fish and game. Those exemptions

were uniform and were included in every statute and treaty dealing with native hunting and fishing rights. In 1942, the Solicitor

at the Interior Department had occasion to discuss the hunting and

fishing rights of Alaska Natives, and in a lengthy opinion that I

wholeheartedly agree with, concluded that natives had

unextinguished aboriginal rights that continued to be available for

their use and protection and that the Federal Government had an

obligation to protect.

There was a short period when a smattering of reservations were

created in Alaska pursuant to the Indian Reorganization Act and

under the President’s executive order authority. Those reservations
8

typically were set aside for the protection of native hunting and

fishing rights, as well as for a land base. As you know, all those

reservations except one were extinguished when ANCSA was

passed.

The Statehood Act in 1959 provided that the State of Alaska

should disclaim all right and title to native lands and to fishing

rights. Fishing rights were mentioned in particular because of their

extreme importance to Alaska Native people. It is commonly stated

that Alaska achieved management of fish and game at the moment

of statehood. That is not correct. The Statehood Act withheld State

jurisdiction over fish and game pending a certification by the Secretary of the Interior that the State had an adequate regulatory regime in place. That certification came out of the Secretary of the

Interior in 1960.

As the State of Alaska exercised its authority under the Statehood Act to select up to 100 million acres, and as the route for the

Trans-Alaska Pipeline was put into existence and selections were

made, native protests that were made to the Secretary of the Interior caused Secretary Stuart Udall to impose a land freeze on all

conveyances of land out of the Federal public domain in recognition

of native aboriginal hunting and fishing rights and aboriginal title.

That land freeze and resulting political pressures brought about

the adoption of the Native Claims Settlement Act in 1971. That

Settlement Act did not provide for any protection for native hunting and fishing rights. It extinguished their existence and noted in

the Conference Committee report that the conferees, the Senate

and the House, expected the State of Alaska and the Secretary of

the Interior to use their existing authority to protect and provide

for native hunting and fishing rights in Alaska.

One year after ANCSA was adopted, Congress preempted all

State law in the Marine Mammal Protection Act and imposed a

moratorium on the harvest of marine mammals. That statute, however, contained an exemption for Alaska Natives who dwell on the

coast. The next year after that, 1973, the Endangered Species Act

placed limits on the harvest of endangered species. Once again, a

native exemption was included in the statute.

By the late 1970’s, it was quite clear that the Secretary of the

Interior and the State of Alaska had failed to adequately provide

for subsistence uses of fish and game by Alaska Natives as Congress had expected in 1971. In anticipation of the passage of title

VIII of ANILCA, a State subsistence law was passed in 1978 providing for a preference for subsistence uses. At that same time, a

bill was working its way through Congress to provide for a native

subsistence priority. The State of Alaska objected to a native preference on the ground that it would be unable to administer a native priority under State law, and requested that it be changed to

rural. Congress acquiesced in the State’s request, and in 1980 title

VIII of ANILCA was passed, which provided for the rural preference for subsistence uses on public lands. The State would be entitled to manage resources on Federal public lands if it adopted a

statewide law that mirrored ANILCA’s protection for a rural preference.

Now, State law provided a subsistence preference, but it did not

have a limitation to rural areas. The State immediately ran into
9

trouble with its own Supreme Court in 1985 when the Madison decision came down striking down State regulations that limited the

subsistence preference to rural residents. The State legislature responded in 1986 with an amendment that put a rural preference

into State law. That statute was in turn challenged in the

McDowell case in which the Alaska Supreme Court ruled that the

equal access provisions of the State Constitution precluded the

State from providing a rural preference.

The State made immediate efforts to amend the Constitution.

Those failed and the Federal Government took over management

of subsistence uses on Federal public lands in 1990. The Administration that took over subsistence management on the Federal level

failed to assert any jurisdiction over navigable waterways in Alaska. As a result of that, the Katie John case was the gun. Katie

John endorsed Charles of Dot Lake who brought litigation to force

the Federal Government to apply the priority not only to Federal

uplands, but also to Federal waters. They were successful in the

Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in 1995. There were a series of appropriations riders that precluded the Federal Government from

implementing the takeover of these fisheries until 2000. In 2001,

the Ninth Circuit revisited the Katie John case, and an 11-judge

panel agreed that the 1995 decision was correct.

So there you have it. As of today, the Federal Government administers the priority for subsistence uses by rural residents on all

Federal uplands in Alaska and on approximately 50 or 60 percent

of the waters in the State. Very importantly, the fisheries protection does not extend to marine waters for the most part, although

there is some litigation in Southeast Alaska about the legality of

that. It seems likely that marine waters will not be included, and

of course those are very important for subsistence uses.

So given this litigation-driven and relatively unsatisfactory state

of affairs, one might ask what could Congress do to provide for a

uniform subsistence priority in Alaska. There is no doubt as a matter of Federal law that under the Indian commerce clause and the

general commerce clause that Congress has the power to provide

a native priority for subsistence uses on all land and water in Alaska, including State lands in Alaska, and certainly native corporation lands which are ironically not protected by the Federal priority

right now. The Marine Mammal Protection Act that I mentioned

earlier was passed in 1973. It provides a native exemption, and

that exemption of course is chiefly utilized and important in State

waters—those waters out from the mean high water mark to 3

miles seaward. So Congress has the authority to provide a native

preference if it chooses to do so.

Similarly, if Congress chose to provide for a rural plus native priority, I believe that that would likewise pass constitutional muster.

There are dozens of statutes that provide benefits for residents of

rural areas throughout the United States. A challenge was brought

by the same plaintiffs in the McDowell case to the Federal rural

preference, attempting to mirror their success in the State court

litigation. Federal District Judge Holland in 1994 in a lengthy

opinion rejected the attack on the Federal rural preference. He

found that it passed muster under the equal protection clause, that

Congress clearly had the authority to adopt the rural preference.
10

The Ninth Circuit ended up vacating that decision on technical

grounds because the plaintiffs in the case had not shown standing,

and the case is working its way through the Federal Court system

again right now. But Judge Holland is already on record that the

rural preference is permissible, and that seems clear as a matter

of Federal constitutional law.

One other issue that has been discussed is whether or not such

a preemptive Federal statutory scheme could be made effective

only on the vote of Alaskans. I have searched the U.S. Code and

found a couple of obscure provisions in the banking law area where

Congress has in fact preempted State law with respect to interest

rate regulation and given States the authority to have a general

election to decide whether or not they want to be preempted. So if

that course were to be followed here, Congress could certainly authorize an election to determine whether a preemptive statute

ought to be effective or not.

That wraps up my testimony. I would be pleased to answer any

questions or submit additional matters for the record, Mr. Chairman. Thank you very much for the opportunity to make a presentation.

[Prepared statement of Mr. Anderson appears in appendix.]

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Mr. Anderson.

Because the matter before us is a complex one that involves

much law and litigation, would you say that since 1867 when every

branch of the Government recognized the special rights and privileges of natives and protected such rights, that the present law, the

ANILCA, has stood muster and is still constitutional?

Mr. ANDERSON. Yes; I would say that ANILCA is constitutional

in the sense that it provides a rural preference. The fact of the

matter is that it was an experimental model for State/Federal cooperation, and the State government first was unable because of its

Constitution to maintain its end of the bargain, and now appears

to be unwilling to maintain its end of the bargain because the legislature will not let the people vote on a constitutional amendment.

The CHAIRMAN. What percentage of fish and game harvested in

Alaska are taken by commercial or sports users?

Mr. ANDERSON. I am going to turn that around and say that less

than 2 percent of fish and game taken for any purpose in Alaska

are taken for subsistence uses. As to the division between sport

and commercial, that is the other 98 percent. I do not know how

they are divided up.

The CHAIRMAN. So what is involved is just a small almost unidentifiable amount of fish and wildlife?

Mr. ANDERSON. That is correct.

The CHAIRMAN. Where does the majority of this subsistence activity take place—on Federal or State lands?

Mr. ANDERSON. Well, I think it is split between the two. There

is a lot of Federal land in Alaska so the Federal lands are very important. The Federal Government does not have interests in all the

waters in Alaska, so I think that many of the subsistence activities

that take place in marine waters are extremely important, especially in Southeast Alaska, and those are not covered. There are

lengthy stretches of the major rivers like the Yukon-Kuskokwim

and Copper River that are not—not the Copper River—but other
11

rivers in Northwest Alaska that are not covered by the Federal priority. So I would say there are very substantial areas that are not

protected by the Federal priority.

The CHAIRMAN. Dr. Worl, on April 6, your governor announced

that he will convene a special session of the legislature on May 15.

Do you have any hope in the outcome?

Ms. WORL. Senator, the Alaska Federation of Natives has—we

have gone to the State legislature. We have supported a constitutional amendment I think about fives times now in five different

special sessions. We are hopeful that this legislature might pass a

constitutional amendment. We had a vote in Anchorage where 70

percent of the Anchorage voters said that they wanted the State of

Alaska to resolve this issue through a constitutional amendment.

However, unless that vote in Anchorage persuades some of the

urban legislators to change their mind, I do not know. I am just— I have to say that I am not really optimistic about it.

The CHAIRMAN. I have a few other questions, Dr. Worl. In your

testimony, you have stated that for Alaska Natives, subsistence

means a way of life. Does this hunting, fishing and gathering way

of life still provide a food base for Alaska Native families?

Ms. WORL. Absolutely. We have very good data provided by the

State Department of Fish and Game that really shows the significance of the food consumption. I think Mary Pete from the Subsistence Division may be speaking to quantifying how much that is.

But if we did not have it in rural Alaska today, and you will hear

some testimony about the shortages that we have had on the

Yukon with the fisheries there and the impacts that it has had on

those communities, if we did not have subsistence protections, if we

were not able to do that, I would say as I have said, we would have

hungry people in Alaska.

The CHAIRMAN. So it is a matter of life and death in some cases.

Ms. WORL. It is absolutely critical. There are some studies that

will say that subsistence supplants 20 percent of your diet. If you

take 20 percent of that diet away, you are still hungry. So it is critical and it varies from community to community.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Akootchook, from your experience, if subsistence priorities were not granted you, would you have been able to

carry on your family?

Mr. AKOOTCHOOK. Yes; it is really important to our family—the

fishing and hunting is terrible and all those things for us.

The CHAIRMAN. You did not do the hunting just for sport, did

you?

Mr. AKOOTCHOOK. No.

The CHAIRMAN. It is for your livelihood.

Mr. AKOOTCHOOK. Livelihood, yes.

The CHAIRMAN. And it provided food for your children and your

family?

Mr. AKOOTCHOOK. Exactly. It was another way for our family to

go whaling and we would always share always on the North Slope

and people living in Fairbanks, and we always share with this with

the whale.

The CHAIRMAN. If this was taken away from you, would your

family starve?

Mr. AKOOTCHOOK. Pardon me?
12

The CHAIRMAN. If the right to fish and hunt was taken away

from you, would your family starve?

Mr. AKOOTCHOOK. No; I will let my daughter answer that because I really have not English very well.

Ms. ANGASAN. Hi. My name is Ida Angasan. I am the daughter

of Isaac Akootchook. The answer to your question is, well, all I can

say is long ago when my grandfather and his family went from one

place to another, they were starving. I remember my dad telling us

that sometimes they would have fish. Other times there was no

meat. So they went from one place to another throughout the border of Alaska to Kaftovik, to Flatman Island, Brownley Point, to

the mountains, and then toward Barrow for our subsistence way of

life. So we need our subsistence way of life. Thank you.

The CHAIRMAN. I thank you very much.

And I would like to thank the first panel. I have many more

questions, but since we have a whole list of witnesses, I will be

submitting, Dr. Worl if I may, a few written questions to you.

Ms. WORL. Thank you very much, Senator. We will leave you the

photo and also this news article about them.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you.

Our second panel consists of the vice president of Bristol Bay Native Association of Dillingham, Andy Golia; the president of the Association of Village Council Presidents of Bethel, AK, Arthur Lake;

fisheries specialist, Tanana Chiefs Conference of Fairbanks, George

Yaska; the executive director of the Alaska Nanuuq Commission of

Nome, AK, Charles Johnson; and the executive director of Southeast Alaska Intertribal Fish and Wildlife Commission of Juneau,

Gordon Jackson.

Mr. Golia.

STATEMENT OF ANDY GOLIA, VICE PRESIDENT, BRISTOL BAY

NATIVE ASSOCIATION

Mr. GOLIA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and committee members.

My name is Andy Golia and I am a resident of Dillingham, AK.

It is a community located on the Bering Sea coast about 300 miles

southwest of Anchorage. During the winter months, I work as the

program manager for economic development for the Bristol Bay

Native Association. In the summer, I am a drift gillnet salmon fisherman in Bristol Bay’s commercial salmon fishery.

I am honored here to testify on behalf of Harvey Samuelsen

whom you invited to testify. I would like to apologize to the chairman. Harvey asked that I present the chairman with an American

veteran’s cap and I told him I would. I failed to pick up that cap

from Harvey to get to you.

With that, our region known as the Bristol Bay region covers

about 40,000 square miles and includes 30 villages and 9 major

river systems. It also includes the richest and most productive

salmon habitat in the world. Our relationship to that fishery and

the land and water that sustain us are defined by our subsistence

customs and practices that are essential to our way of life.

Approximately 90 percent of the village residents in our region

are Alaska Natives. Like other natives across Alaska, we have

practiced a subsistence lifestyle for many generations to feed our

families and to supplement our cash incomes. Subsistence tradi-
13

tions govern our family, community, and economic systems and define who we are as a people. We do not consider subsistence a recreational activity. It is a way of life.

The Bristol Bay commercial salmon fishery is the economic base

of our region. It has provided us with the cash we need to build

and heat our homes, maintain our school system and feed our families. Nearly two-thirds of our households derive more than 80 percent of their income directly from the fishery. Our sons and daughters grew up in this tradition and expect to commercially fish.

However, in recent years, our fishery has collapsed. The main

reason why our commercial salmon fishery has fallen apart is because of the farmed salmon industry. The farmed salmon industry

has glutted world salmon markets and driven salmon prices down.

We have seen our salmon prices drop from a high of $2.25 a pound

back in 1988 to just 40 cents a pound last summer. In 1997 and

in 1998, our fishery was declared an economic disaster by both the

State and Federal Governments because of failed salmon runs, and

again by the State in 2001 because of weak salmon prices. We have

been declared an economic disaster 3 out of the last 5 years and

it does not look good for this upcoming fishing season; 10 years ago,

Bristol Bay’s salmon fishery had as many as 2 dozen salmon buyers. We are just down to eight today.

Over the last 2 years, we have seen a significant number of villagers leaving their communities. Back in 1990, Chignik Bay had

a population of 190. Today, its population is down to 48. Folks are

looking for jobs elsewhere because very few jobs are available in

the villages.

We have villagers moving out of Naknek, South Naknek, Pilot

Point, and Port Heiden. Schools in these particular communities

are on the verge of being shut down because they do not have

enough students to operate the school.

I guess my point here is our region is going through a very difficult time. Usually when we have a bad fishing season, we rely

more heavily on subsistence hunting and fishing to survive. But

this is just not a bad business season for Bristol Bay. The longterm outlook for salmon prices in our region looks grim.

I just want to say that I guess the other reason why we need to

hunt and fish out in Bristol Bay, Dr. Worl indicated that the cost

of living is extremely high. The University of Alaska Cooperative

Extension Service completed a cost of food study on 20 communities in Alaska, and Dillingham residents pay among the highest

in the State for food. It costs an average of about $190 per week

to feed a family of four. This amounts to about $760 a month. In

comparison, Anchorage residents pay $101 per week and Portland,

OR residents pay $87 per week—or less than one-half of what we

pay in Dillingham. One gallon of milk in Dillingham costs $6.48.

We pay $2.59 for a gallon of gasoline. We also pay about 23 cents

per kilowatt hour for electricity, or twice as much as what Anchorage residents pay. In some of our villages, they have to pay $4 a

gallon for 1 gallon of gasoline, $3 a gallon for home heating fuel,

and 45 cents per kilowatt hour for electricity.

Essentially what I am saying is that because of the high cost of

living, we save through subsistence harvest to help heat and light

our homes.
14

I would like to close by making just a couple of other points here.

On the Alaska Peninsula, there has been a decline of the Northern

Alaska caribou herd. In 1975, this herd numbered 25,000. Today,

the herd is down to 6,000. In spite of this decline and the dependence of subsistence hunters on this food source, this year the State

awarded 400 statewide permits to hunt this herd, while Federal

subsistence management awarded only 40 permits for 11 villages.

We are also seeing a growing number of native allotment donors

selling their native allotments so they could pay their bills. These

allotments are being sold in many cases to outside interests who

do not always share our subsistence traditions. They seek economic

gain by building sports hunting and fishing lodges that compete

against us for fish and game resources. We have approximately 104

parcels of native allotments in Bristol Bay for sale right now.

That concludes my testimony. Thank you.

[Prepared statement of Mr. Golia appears in appendix.]

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much. I note that most of the

witnesses are summarizing their statements and I thank you for

that. I can assure you that your full statement will be made part

of the record.

Our next witness is President Lake.

STATEMENT OF ARTHUR LAKE, PRESIDENT, ASSOCIATION OF

VILLAGE COUNCIL PRESIDENTS

Mr. LAKE. Mr. Chairman, the Honorable Senator Inouye, [statement in native language.]

Senator Inouye, my name is Arthur J. Lake. I am here to speak

concerning subsistence, and that introduction, sir, is one of the

basic reasons why there are so many problems with subsistence in

Alaska.

I am the president of the Association of Village Council Presidents for the Yukon-Kuskokwim Delta, Yup’ik Eskimo. Our offices

are located in Bethel, AK in Southwest Alaska. We have submitted

written testimony for the record. What I am going to say here is

more personal because subsistence is such a personal issue to all

the people of my region.

To the Government, the issue of managing hunting, fishing and

gathering comes down to a question of control. But to the Yup’ik,

it is our very survival. There is not enough vocabulary in the

English language to give our term ‘‘Nerangnaq Saraq’’ an adequate

definition, but what it comes down to in its awesome simplicity is

this, ‘‘Nerangnaq Saraq’’ defines us—the Yup’ik/Cup’ik and other

Alaska Natives. The non-native term is ‘‘Subsistence.’’

Ellam-yua, the Great Spirit or God, put the Yup’ik on this earth

to play a pivotal role in our environment. We are part of the giving

land and living resources of the Delta. We play a role of the natural cycles of life. We take, but we give. It is our responsibility to

act as keepers and protectors of the land. Our practices of ‘‘Subsistence’’ is equivalent to the taking of a sacrament. In the taking of

a wild fish or animal, we honor its spirit for being put on this earth

to provide for us, feed and clothe us, for sustaining us in such an

environment we find ourselves in. Despite a demonstrated history

of sustainable customary and traditional use of the world around
15

us, our hunter and gatherer society has been held in limbo over

who gets to control our harvest rights.

We are the last of the great hunters and gatherers of North

America. We practice our birthright and legacy every day. We also

happen to reside in a national wildlife refuge, a public land the size

of the State of Washington. We also have State public lands located

within our region. We are constantly at the mercy and whim of environmental trends that are meant to form blanket restrictions on

all public lands, thereby unwittingly restricting and denying our

modest access, use and activities required for ‘‘Subsistence.’’ Our practices reflect migratory patterns. We had been a nomadic

people up until about 50 years ago, and still are in spirit and emotion. We still maintain seasonal campsites because as seasons

change, so does our quest for fresh food—cyclical natures that can

both gratify and humble us, reward us or punish us. There were

times of starvation where elders and young, sometimes whole families in villages perished. In our past, there was nothing more humbling than dying hungry, to remind in us the inherent value in protecting the resources to satisfy our subsistence needs today.

We may not have had Western science, but our traditional

knowledge and techniques still manage to achieve sustainable conservation and a natural balance. We knew when to restrict ourselves when a species was in trouble. We knew how to practice

predator control and enhance habitats. Our region is so vast and

yielding and has different characteristics from one village area to

the next. What is as easy for a sufficiently infrastructured community resident to do in a few minutes in the supermarket would take

1 day or up to 1 week for a native hunter or gatherer to harvest

in the Y–K Delta. Our ‘‘Subsistence’’ diet affects our daily lives, yet

we work very hard for it because we eat what we have known for

a millennia. Alaska and Federal regulations require permits and licenses. How can we have a piece of paper to allow us to practice

our customary and traditional ‘‘Subsistence’’ activities? It is like

asking one of your constituent shoppers to get a permit to go into

a Safeway or a Giant supermarket. Some regulatory attempts have

even asked us to prove ourselves indigent in order to qualify for

our ‘‘Subsistence’’ rights. Such attempts demean the nobility of our

practices of providing for our families. We should not have to

choose to be poor in order to practice our heritage and feed our

families. It is a part of our culture.

Our ancestors, our parents, and our children eat our native foods

because it is our food. I promise you, even if I won the lottery,

which I did not yesterday, and became a millionaire, I would still

eat, I would still crave uqsuq or tepa, that is fermented fish heads,

a traditional food that would be to you a repugnant smell. To me,

it is a delicacy and our people will continue to eat that kind of food

despite the availability of other kinds of foods.

Our hunting and gathering practices are not easy. We battle the

Arctic elements and sometimes risk our lives to feed our families

to find the wild foods we crave. Our surviving ‘‘Subsistence’’ way

of life is one of the last great vestiges in our self-preservation and

sustaining society.

My verbal testimony is required to be short, and while it is impossible to tell you how important ‘‘Subsistence’’ is, my written tes-
16

timony is more detailed in an effort to attribute some credit to this

way of life. The only way to know ‘‘Subsistence’’ is to live it and

experience it. It is a wonder to behold, and we are honored to continue its practice as a tribute to our ancestors and their legacy.

It is not an easy life, but it is ours. It is our duty and our obligation to save it and preserve our culture, our way of life. Our forefathers, the ones before us, and Ellam-yua gave us the gift of ‘‘Subsistence,’’ the gift of life, and we will never give that up.

In reference to Mr. Golia’s statements 1 minute ago, we have the

highest cost of living in the poorest area of the Nation.

Mr. Chairman, thank you for holding this hearing, for giving us

a chance to put a voice to something so very important to such a

small population. I will be happy to answer any questions that you

may have.

Quyana. Thank you.

[Prepared statement of Mr. Lake appears in appendix.]

The CHAIRMAN. Well, Mr. Lake, Mr. President, I thank you very

much for your very moving statement.

May I now call on Mr. Yaska.

STATEMENT OF GEORGE YASKA, FISHERIES SPECIALIST,

TANANA CHIEF CONFERENCE

Mr. YASKA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

My name is George Yaska. My comments today reflect the testimony, the position of the Tanana Chiefs Conference, a consortium

of 42 tribes in the interior of Alaska. I have been wanting to talk

for many years about a truer subsistence priority, and that is a priority that is difficult to reflect in law, and definitely in practice. We

have been thinking about a true subsistence priority for many

years. I first raised this issue after, oh, roughly a decade of seeing

ANILCA on the ground, managed both public lands and on State

lands and on native lands.

A true subsistence priority is difficult to come by, especially

when we do not have a full-time priority. I think that is the case

in Alaska now, but for the folks who are not here today, I have to

speak for them and their thoughts. They are the real experts. I was

called, I suppose, because at my company in the Doyon region, I

am regarded as a natural resource expert. The real experts,

though, are back there in 40-plus villages within the Yukon and

Kuskokwim drainages in the interior of Alaska.

They are the folks who have to live there everyday, who have to

compete with guided moose hunters and hundreds, thousands of

trophy moose hunters, and commercial fishermen throughout the

Nation. Oftentimes, our true subsistence priority is not apparent.

Although we may at times have a bountiful resource, we practice

strong management. We advocate for the best management possible. We work with all the managing agencies—the Alaska Department of Fish and Game, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the National Marine Fisheries Service, all of the convening commissions

and boards. We rarely ever get to reap those benefits, when at

times we do expect and produce, rather the earth produces a bountiful resource, commercial and sports users are always first in line

and actually highly competitive in the arena of harvest, and often

gain the greatest benefit.
17

So those folks back there have asked me to say that the subsistence priority is not always in effect. Although we may have a bountiful resource, there may not be a need for subsistence priorities

seemingly. There is just a limited amount of land and a limited

amount of resource, and they want me to say that they need a true

subsistence priority.

I also work, Mr. Chairman, on a number of comanagement agreements, and I wanted to speak briefly about those today and express

the Tanana Chiefs Conference true appreciation for your work in

gaining funds for research on the cause of the decline of salmon in

Alaska. The Arctic Yukon Kuskokwim Coalition has begun that research with the National Marine Fisheries Service, the Alaska Department of Fish and Game, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Some $5 million—we may be pairing that with other resources

here real soon. I think there are some real clues about where we

might be going with that. So again, thank you for that, Mr. Chairman.

I did want to say and speak about the K River team, probably

one of our better accomplishments—a longstanding arrangement

with a moose management working group back along the Koyokuk

River who has worked with the Alaska Department of Fish and

Game and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for about 8 years, 9

years. They are finally beginning to come close to a negotiated

agreement with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Federal agencies, non-BIA–DOI agencies, to assist in the management of the

Koyokuk and Kanuti National Wildlife Refuges.

It has been, though, a long struggle, as many things are different

in Alaska relative to the rest of the Nation. It has been a long

struggle. If we had a mandate that would allow us to work on this

in an easier fashion with the Federal agencies, but now the Federal

agencies can walk away from the table and that is perfectly fine.

They do not have to stay at the table. So it has been a struggle

to keep them at the table. But I just wanted to say that we are

finally getting there, Mr. Chairman, and with a bit more help, with

your help, I think we can weather these difficulties.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[Prepared statement of Mr. Yaska appears in appendix.]

The CHAIRMAN. I thank you very much, Mr. Yaska.

May I now call upon Mr. Johnson.

STATEMENT OF CHARLES JOHNSON, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR,

ALASKA NANUUQ COMMISSION

Mr. JOHNSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I would like to thank Art and George Yaska for making introductory remarks for my statement, which is on comanagement. Mr.

Lake introduced the topic of how do we deal with management

issues, how do we manage our subsistence. And George raised the

issue of comanagement. That is what my statement is about.

This is the heart and soul of Alaska Native people—subsistence.

Through the generations, subsistence has taught us to be the stewards of the land and waters that support us; to take what we need

and to return to the land what we do not need. We are taught not

to waste and to share. With a respect for and a thorough knowledge of the environment, our ancestors were able to survive and
18

even thrive in the harshest conditions because we managed our

harvest. The principle of not wasting meant that we understood the

principle of a sustainable harvest.

The 1994 reauthorization of the Marine Mammal Protection Act

allowed the Secretaries of the Interior and Commerce to enter into,

quote, ‘‘cooperative agreements’’ with Alaska Native organizations

for the management of the subsistence harvest of marine mammals. Comanagement began in Alaska in 1977 when the Alaska

Eskimo Whaling Commission signed an agreement with NOAA to

manage the harvest of bowhead whales. This comanagement agreement was successful because of the vast knowledge of the whaling

captains that they had on the behavior and the numbers of the

bowhead whales, and their willingness to share this information

with the management agencies, and the Alaska Eskimo Whaling

Commission development of self-regulation and the resolve to abide

by these regulations, and the willingness of NOAA to consider the

traditional knowledge held by the whaling captains and augment

that knowledge with new scientific techniques and equipment, and

the willingness of NOAA to share management responsibility with

the Alaska Eskimo Whaling Commission, and to support shared

management.

The Alaska Nanuuq Commission, which I represent, was organized in 1994 to represent the hunters and villages in North and

Northwest Alaska in the negotiation of the United States-Russia

Polar Bear Treaty. Thanks to the Native American policy developed

by the late director of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Mollie

Beattie, the Alaska Nanuuq Commission became a full partner

with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife in the negotiation of the treaty.

This treaty was signed on October 16 here in Washington, DC in

the year 2000. The treaty is unique in that it recognizes the traditional knowledge of the native peoples of both Alaska and Russia,

and provides for their full and equal participation in setting harvest limits and the management of the subsistence harvest of the

polar bear.

When the Russian Ambassador to the United States, Yurie

Ushakov, signed the treaty, he declared that it was the most democratic treaty that Russia had ever signed. Once the treaty is ratified, the Alaska Nanuuq Commission will have achieved a level of

comanagement that only the Alaska Eskimo Whaling Commission

has reached. The Alaska Nanuuq Commission is now developing a

native-to-native agreement to implement the treaty with the Association of Traditional Marine Mammal Hunters of Chukotka, which

represents the native people of Chukotka in Russia.

Other successful comanagement agreements beside the Alaska

Eskimo Whaling Commission and the Alaska Nanuuq Commission

include, but this is not a complete list, this is just a sample, the

Alaska Native Harbor Seal Commission with National Marine

Fisheries on harbor seals; the Alaska Sea Otter and Stellar Sea

Lion Commission with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife and the National

Marine Fisheries on sea otters and sea lions; the Alaska Beluga

Committee with NOAA on beluga; the Eskimo Walrus Commission

with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife on walrus; and the YukonKuskokwim Delta Goose Management Plan between the Association of Village Council Presidents and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife.
19

You will note, Mr. Chairman, that all of these agreements are between Alaska Native groups and Federal agencies. We just heard

of one with the State, and those are very rare. With the exception

of the Goose Management Plan, the agreements cover marine

mammals, which have specific legislation—the aforementioned Marine Mammal Protection Act. But the same principles can be applied to terrestrial species and to fish. We have a history of successfully working with the agencies that go back for more than 25

years. With the Federal Government now in control of subsistence

in much of Alaska, this is a great opportunity that these comanagement agreements be extended to the regional nonprofit, as George

mentioned about the Tanana Chiefs, and to other Alaska Native

tribes.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[Prepared statement of Mr. Johnson appears in appendix.]

The CHAIRMAN. I thank you, Mr. Johnson.

May I now recognize Mr. Jackson.

STATEMENT OF GORDON JACKSON, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR,

SOUTHEAST ALASKA INTERTRIBAL FISH AND WILDLIFE

COMMISSION

Mr. JACKSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

My name is Gordon Jackson. I represent the Central Council

Tlingit-Haida Indians of Alaska. We are a member of the Southeast

Alaska Intertribal Fish and Wildlife Commission. On behalf of

Chairman Matthew Kookesh, I would like to thank you for hosting

this hearing this afternoon.

Over the last year, we have organized many of the tribes by resolution to address many of the subsistence and commercial fishing

problems in Southeast Alaska. There are many. Like I said, the

Commission is composed of a member from each of the tribes in

Southeast Alaska. One of the areas that we started looking at immediately was the comanagement of fish and game in Southeast

Alaska. We feel that it is a great solution to many of the problems

relating to subsistence and commercial fishing.

As a member of the Central Council, I am also a member of the

Migratory Bird Commission. As a commission which is composed of

members of the State and Federal agencies and the 12 regions

throughout the whole State, we meet quarterly and review the statistics, promulgate rules and regulations for the taking of migratory birds and eggs for subsistence users. The relationship is very

professional and everyone takes their responsibilities very seriously. The relationship between the tribes, State, and Federal

agencies is very good, and we have learned to trust one another

and to secure the best possible policies to protect the subsistence

user and the resources.

We do not take too many birds in Southeast Alaska, and we have

proposed the promulgation of taking of sea gull eggs outside of Glacier Bay. But just getting together with the folks from the YukonKuskokwim area and talking about such things as the goose management plan gave us a great understanding of the Southeast people as to the value of migratory birds within their region, and have

given them our support and helped to develop and promulgate
20

rules and regulations with them so that that resource continues

into the future.

Another member of the Central Council also is a member of the

Marine Mammal Commission, and also the Harbor Seal Commission. His name is Harold Martin. Those Commissions are comanagement organizations, and Harold Martin has explained to

me that that comanagement plan works really well, very similar to

the Migratory Bird Treaty. Over the last few days, the North Pacific Fisheries Management Council authorized subsistence fishery

for rural residents and tribes throughout the whole State. In those

provisions, they allow for some agreements with tribes and governments for harvesting and monitoring and planning and other issues

relating to subsistence use of halibut.

On the Commission, we have started to look at the effects of the

Pacific Salmon Treaty as it relates to subsistence and commercial

fishing. We have met with the Columbia River Intertribal Fish

Commission and really feel very strongly that we need to address

that so that we are responsive.

One of the things that—one of the studies that we just finished

as a Commission was a regulation and review of all the rules and

regulations relating to subsistence in Southeast Alaska as it relates

to Southeast Alaska Natives, and also all the court cases. We find

that a lot of them are real different from one end of Southeast

Alaska to another—in fact, village to village. The State and Federal

agencies address it completely different, and we feel real strongly

that some kind of comanagement system in which communication

between all the entities would give better understanding of the way

people live and the policies that affect them would provide for a

better system of management throughout the region.

Southeast Alaska tribes are surrounded by Federal land, with

some State, Federal, and native corporation lands sprinkled

throughout the region. It is one of the goals of the Southeast Intertribal Fish and Wildlife Commission to initiate management plans

throughout the region. Indeed, we have already had some success

with comanagement plans for sockeye streams that have been identified by local communities for taking of sockeye for subsistence.

We really believe in a comanagement system that goes to the lowest common denominator to be a good system.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much, Mr. Jackson.

May I ask the panel members to just stand by because we will

be asking questions when the last remaining four witnesses have

concluded.

May I now call upon the chairman of the Alaska Inter-Tribal

Council of Anchorage, Mike Williams; and the executive director of

the Rural Alaska Community Action Program of Anchorage, Jeanine Kennedy.

Chairman Williams.

STATEMENT OF MIKE WILLIAMS, CHAIRMAN, ALASKA INTERTRIBAL COUNCIL

Mr. WILLIAMS. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, members of the

committee.
21

My name is Mike Williams. I am currently the chairman of the

Alaska Inter-Tribal Council, and also Juneau-area vice president

for the National Congress of American Indians, and also on the

board of the Native American Rights Fund.

On behalf of the 188 tribal governments who are members of the

Alaska Inter-Tribal Council, I want to express thanks to this committee for taking time to hear our concerns about subsistence.

More than that, Senator Inouye, I wish to add thanks to individual

tribal members, many, many of whom in this year of 2002 hunt,

fish, and gather not only for themselves and their families, but to

share the bounty of the land and waters with others in their communities as has been our tradition for hundreds and thousands of

years. Thank you for listening to us.

The great majority of our people have never left Alaska. Some

rarely ever leave immediate vicinity of their villages. I think it is

true to say that many do not read newspapers, and for them a legal

brief is an alien document. Policies and written laws and regulations are likewise foreign concepts. Their idea of a law is what they

were taught by parents or elders as they set out to learn how to

support themselves from the land.

Increasingly, Mr. Chairman, they are feeling the stress of ever

more restrictive regulation, ever narrowing seasons, decreasing fish

stocks and game populations. Some of our people do deal on daily

basis with the task of maintaining legal protections for our way of

life. What they have fought over the past 20 or 30 years are more

or less public relations and policy battles, for historic accuracy, for

regulatory fairness, for semantic truth.

When we speak of historic accuracy, what we want people to remember is the reason why title VIII of the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act exists. Let me read into the record

today that reason, as set forth by the late Congressman Morris

Udall on November 12, 1980. ANILCA fully reflects the commitment that was made to the Alaska Native people when their land

claims were passed by Congress. Although there are many non–natives living a subsistence way of life in rural Alaska, the subsistence title would not be included in the bill if non–native subsistence activities were the primary focus of concern. Rather, the subsistence title and other subsistence provisions are included in recognition of the ongoing responsibility of Congress to protect the opportunity for continued subsistence uses in Alaska by Alaska Native people—a responsibility which is consistent with our well-recognized constitutional authority to manage Indian affairs.

Today, there are people who would like Congress to think that

ANILCA was promulgated in a kind of policy vacuum without consideration for the aboriginal rights of our people who earned those

rights by using and occupying vast amounts of Alaska for subsistence. Without that history of aboriginal use and occupancy, there

would have been no basis for our land claims.

When we speak of regulatory fairness, we speak of a situation

where our people’s subsistence needs and concerns have been

pushed to the bottom of the agendas for the Alaska State Board of

Fish and Game. Time after time, we have seen our proposals voted

down because the State system requires management by agencies

who are staffed by political appointees. And politics, being what it
22

is, those appointees represent well-funded, well-organized commercial fishers and sport hunters and fishers.

Mr. Chairman, our tribes would have liked to support State management of subsistence because we are not only tribal citizens, we

are also Alaskan citizens. But it is difficult, if not impossible, to

support a system that routinely neglects the needs of tribal hunters, fishers and gatherers.

Finally, Mr. Chairman, I speak of semantic truth. That word ‘‘semantic’’ comes from the French word ‘‘semantique,’’ which in turn

derived from the old Greek work ‘‘semantikos.’’ Their meaning

stems from the verb ‘‘to signify,’’ which comes from yet an older

word meaning ‘‘to mark.’’ We in Alaska have watched a small, but

politically powerful group of people attempt to mark out the boundaries of the subsistence issue.

They have almost succeeded in convincing the general public that

the subsistence issue is one centered around geography and discrimination. The two arguments are condensed into their strident

statement that legal protection of subsistence in the Federal law in

ANILCA amounts to discrimination by zip code, which brings us

back to accuracy in reporting history. Title VIII of ANILCA says

that Federal law shall protect not Alaska Natives or tribes, but

rural Alaska residents. That language stems from the compromise

that our leaders reluctantly accepted at the time ANILCA was

passed by Congress. We accepted it because our villages were, and

many still are, located in remote and rural areas of Alaska. But we

have never forgotten Morris Udall’s assurances that the original intent of title VIII was to protect the ability of our villages to support

themselves from the land and waters of Alaska.

Since the enactment of our land claims, the Alaska Native people

have expended untold cost in dollars, human resources and the attendant social stresses on our people, on the subsistence issue that

is before you today. It is the position of the Alaska Inter-Tribal

Council that we would have been better able to direct our precious

resources towards improving the quality of life for our tribal members if our aboriginal hunting and fishing rights had not been extinguished at the time our land claims were settled in 1971.

On April 2, the city of Anchorage included on its municipal elections ballot a question: Should Alaska’s voters be allowed to vote

on the subsistence issue? The result was an uncompromising yes.

In spite of that outcome, the leaders of the legislative majority

were quoted in the Anchorage Daily News as saying they would

still oppose a State law to protect subsistence. Instead, they said

they will continue to push for changes to title VIII of ANILCA.

I call on this committee to lead an effort to place this issue back

where it belongs, in the hands of Congress. Felix Cohen said this

Nation’s founding fathers acted in wisdom to place the affairs of

tribes in your hands. After all, the States of this Union are committed by law and by politics to consider the desires and needs of

every one of their citizens regardless of race. Tribes, as few in number as we are, are vulnerable to the nearsighted policies necessitated by that fact. Only Congress possesses the political objectivity that can see beyond the parochial fights to the best interest of

tribes, their governments and their members.
23

We would like this committee to consider carefully a proposal to

repeal the section of the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act

which extinguished our aboriginal hunting and fishing rights. You

have that power.

Quyana Chuknook.

[Prepared statement of Mr. Williams appears in appendix.]

The CHAIRMAN. I thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

And now may I call upon Ms. Kennedy.

STATEMENT OF JEANINE KENNEDY, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR,

RURAL ALASKA COMMUNITY ACTION PROGRAM, INC., ON

BEHALF OF DONNE FLEAGLE, PRESIDENT, BOARD OF DIRECTORS, ACCOMPANIED BY EILEEN NORBERT, EXECUTIVE

VICE PRESIDENT, KAWERAK, INC.

Ms. KENNEDY. Thank you.

My name is Jeanine Kennedy and I have a voice impediment.

And once my voice starts working, I am okay, so I just want to put

you at ease.

I am here, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, to testify for my board president, Donne Fleagle, who intended to be

here, but at the last minute could not. The Rural Alaska Community Action Program, also known as RurAL CAP, is a statewide organization that was founded in 1965. I am very proud to say, as

I sat here and listened to some of the testimony, the role that

RurAL CAP has played in giving grassroots people a voice at the

local level.

RurAL CAP provides education, information, training, and advocacy in approximately 70 villages at the current time. And in that

process, we bring people together to learn what their ideas are and

to help them to be able to come together and meet. Many of the

comanagement groups that came into being started with the Rural

Alaska Resources Association, which brought people together to

talk about how we could get legislation to give comanagement abilities to the people. We followed the model that started in Kwefla,

when the tribes out there had a management agreement with the

Feds for the caribou. And then, of course, that was followed by the

Goose Management Plan.

Just recently, we have been working with a group called the

working group on getting halibut as a subsistence food. We had a

major success. The chairman of that group, Matt Kookesh had been

working since 1981 to come up with agreements wherein people

could manage at their local level with the Federal Government,

and now that has come into being.

RurAL CAP is governed by a 24-member board of directors that

represents virtually every sector of Alaska, public and private,

rural and urban, native and non-native. While we have programs

whose focus includes urban residents, our closest partners, as I

have said, are the people of village Alaska. In 1999, our board met

in Fairbanks, and as we do periodically, we took a survey and

made a plan among the board members about what their main priorities were. Of course, subsistence was number one.

I was born and raised in Alaska. My mother, who was

Athabascan; my father was non-native. I can remember very early

on before I was 1-year-old swishing through the forest in a dog sled
24

as my mother checked her traps, and in the spring being in the

back of her parka when she checked her muskrats.

So subsistence is important to me, as it is for the people that I

work for.

Increasingly, the activities of subsistence are coming under more

and more attack—first, from non-native Alaskans, many of whom

came to our State because they place a value on the land and the

wild resources; from the State of Alaska which opposed the inclusion of language specifically protecting Alaska Native subsistence

in ANILCA title VIII; from an increasing majority of Alaska residents who are not well-versed on Alaska Native history, including

knowledge of how our land claims were settled and why there is

a title VIII of ANILCA—there would not have been a title VIII in

ANILCA if there had not been indigenous peoples, that is why that

title VIII is there; finally, from a majority of the Alaska State legislature who would like to amend away the subsistence protection in

title VIII.

As you know very well, the State of Alaska would like to regain

management over subsistence on all of Alaska’s public lands, including the 60 percent that is in Federal lands. Title VIII of

ANILCA requires that an essential component of State subsistence

management is a State law that mirrors the Federal subsistence

protection contained in title VIII. That requirement is at the center

of the so-called subsistence impasse, which your committee addresses today.

The Alaska Constitution was approved by Congress in 1958. It

includes a section which says that all of Alaska’s natural resources

are to be reserved for the common use of all Alaskan citizens.

Those who oppose the Federal subsistence protections in title VIII

of ANILCA have used the Alaska Constitution as a weapon against

the Alaska Native way of life. The legislative majority, and their

mostly non–native constituents, are a lobby in Congress to change

ANILCA, instead of changing the State Constitution to allow a

State subsistence protection law.

Over the last several years, Alaska Governor Tony Knowles has

mounted a campaign which he says will make things better. During his 8 years as Governor, he has called no less than four special

sessions to address subsistence. In fact, last month he called yet for

another special session which will begin May 15. In 1996, the Governor appointed a task force to hold hearings. That task force

issued a report in 1997 which recommended the issue be presented

to voters to ask whether they support an amendment to the State

Constitution.

The Governor’s task force also recommended changes which they

termed technical to title VIII of ANILCA. It must be noted here

that the Alaska Native community, including the Alaska InterTribal Council, RurAL CAP, and the Alaska Federation of Natives

voiced opposition to a majority of the 1997 task force recommendations.

In 2001, Governor Knowles appointed some 40 Alaskans to participate in what was called a Leadership Summit on Subsistence.

Of those 40 Alaskans, the majority represented Alaskan business

and commerce, including several Alaska Native corporations and

only two could be deemed to be represent tribal interests. The
25

Summit participants recommended that the question of amending

the State Constitution go to the Alaskan voters, and included a

value statement on the importance of subsistence to Alaskan tribal

cultures.

Last fall, Governor Knowles appointed 1 dozen or so Summit participants to what was called the Subsistence Drafting Committee.

The committee’s purpose was to develop language for a legislative

resolution which if passed by the State legislature would result in

a proposition to be placed on the general election ballot. None of

Governor Knowles’ initiatives to address subsistence included what

could be termed an open public process. The Task Force took public

testimony on an invitation-only basis for one-half day. The Summit

was held in a public setting, but did not include taking testimony.

The Drafting Committee meetings were open to the public, but no

testimony was taken either. It is therefore predictable that the

Alaska Native and tribal community have voiced serious issues regarding the Drafting Committee’s product.

In the short time I have to testify, I present the following five

concerns. First, no one on the committee represented tribes or their

governments. Second, the legislative resolution attempts to appease

sport, commercial fishing, and hunting interests by changing whats

in ANILCA title VIII is a priority of use for rural subsistence users,

to a priority for local users. Third, the legislative resolution calls

for the establishment of a second-tier priority for individuals and

communities who are able to demonstrate their reliance on fish,

game, and other renewable resources. Fourth, the proposal would

put question such as allocation and geographic boundaries for use

areas into the hands of the legislature and/or the Boards of Fish

and Game. Fifth, no measure is included that would advance tribal

comanagement of subsistence resources despite, as you heard, the

great amount of progress that has been made in regard to comanagement.

I am not a subsistence, but I am an advocate, and Mr. Chairman

I believe the time has come for Congress to make remedial action

on the issue of subsistence in Alaska. The State of Alaska has had

well over 20 years to live up to its side of the agreement that was

made when our aboriginal hunting and fishing rights were extinguished. And in 1971, with the passage of ANCSA, our people were

assured that our right to the nutritional, economic, cultural and

spiritual benefits of subsistence would be protected under Federal

and State law.

Our subsistence rights are not based on geography. Our subsistence rights are based firmly in the obligation of the Federal Government to manage native and tribal affairs with the best interests

and survival of our people well in mind.

Thank you very much.

[Prepared statement of Ms. Kennedy, delivered on behalf of

Donne Fleagle, appears in appendix.]

Ms. KENNEDY. Also, I would like to introduce Eileen Norbert,

who is the executive vice president of Kawerak, Inc.

STATEMENT OF EILEEN NORBERT, EXECUTIVE VICE

PRESIDENT, KAWERAK, INC.

Ms. NORBERT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
26

Loretta Bullard, our president, did send in testimony, as well as

a resolution from our board of directors, with our stand on subsistence. I did also submit written testimony. I am not going to go over

all of it. However, I felt it was very important that this committee

take a look at our situation in Norton Sound. We are the only one

where subsistence fishing was totally closed and we went into what

is called a tier-two situation, which I would like to share with you,

and the human impacts it had on our people.

In 1991, the Department of Fish and Game closed our subsistence fishing. Everybody was in total shock. We had one elder who

walked along the beach. He looked for dead fish. She was so hungry for fish. Since then, we have gone to the Board of Fisheries,

which is very political, politically appointed, tried to work with the

Governor through the legislature, and you have already heard we

have a legislature in Alaska who is hostile toward subsistence.

That is the way we feel, for all the actions and non-actions they

have taken.

Two years ago, the situation with our fishing was so bad that the

State opted to put us into a tier-two fishery, which means that

each individual who wants to go subsistence fishing has to fill out

several pages of application. Out of 500 or 600 families in Nome,

only 10 people got permits. They could get 100 fish. Even though

we had recommended to the Board of Fishery, and especially at the

urging of our elders, rather than just letting 10 people fish, you

know, let 20 or 25 people fish, we will get less. But that is the type

of atmosphere that we have to deal with. We can recommend, but

we cannot make decisions.

Last year, it improved a little bit. The board did, say, expanded

the number of people who could fish to 20, but reduced the number

of fish that we could take to 50. Right now, ANILCA is the only

law protecting our subsistence. We feel like we are at the mercy,

like I said before, of a hostile situation in the State of Alaska.

Kawerak opposes any amendment to ANILCA that would weaken

subsistence protections for rural Alaskans. If this State legislature

fails to address this issue, Kawerak strongly supports a restoration

of Alaska Naive aboriginal hunting and fishing rights through an

act of Congress. As Mike and several other people had mentioned

before, we supposedly extinguished—actually Congress extinguished our aboriginal hunting and fishing rights, but Congress

has the power to reinstate those, and that is what we urge you to

do.

Thank you very much for this opportunity. I would like to just

close by sharing with you what one of our elders said. I had asked

her when all this trouble started, is there one word in Inupiaq that

means ‘‘subsistence.’’ And she said she cannot describe subsistence

without describing our spiritual and cultural beliefs. And then after

all that, she finally gave me one word, ‘‘nufla,’’ which basically

means our way of life. But the way we are feeling right now is that

this is a slow cultural genocide, and we ask for your help that it

will stop, and we ask for your protection.

Thank you.

The CHAIRMAN. I thank you very much.

Before we proceed, I would like those assembled here to note that

at this moment there is a very intense debate proceeding on the
27

Senate floor on the matter of the Artic National Wildlife Refuge

[ANWR], which is very close to Alaska, so therefore your Alaskan

Senators had asked to be excused, and that is why they are not

here.

Second, I think it would be appropriate to note that this hearing

was held at the request of Julie Kitka, the president of the Alaska

Federation of Natives. She is the one who recommended that a

record be made of the concerns and values of Alaska Native people

as they relate to subsistence hunting and fishing. But there is also

another meeting at this moment, a very important one, a meeting

convened by the Secretary of Defense, Mr. Rumsfeld, who is now

briefing members of the Senate on the current situation in Afghanistan. As chairman of the Defense Appropriations Committee, I

should be there, but I decided this hearing is just as important, if

not more important. That is why I am here.

Julie, do you have anything you want to say?

STATEMENT OF JULIE KITKA, PRESIDENT, ALASKA

FEDERATION OF NATIVES

Ms. KITKA. Just on behalf of our cochairs Albert Kookesh, Roy

Huhndorf and our board of directors and our people, I want to

thank you very much for holding this oversight hearing and listening to our people and the concerns.

Our number one objective for the hearing was really for the committee to hear how people are doing on the ground, and be aware

of the fact that our Federal protections in the law affect real people

and we have many people that are hurting right now. This photographic illustration of an elderly couple—again, a graphic picture,

if you will, that there are real people behind this law and we very

much are grateful for the committee’s interest and attention. We

will report how things go in the special session coming up next

month. We are working very hard. In the past, we have had our

congressional delegation assisting every step of the way—in fact,

trying to convince our State legislators, and we hope that we have

their support this time again, too.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much, Madam President.

I can assure you that the full testimony and the transcript will

be shared with the members of the committee and I will personally

urge them to read and study the transcript, and thereby learn of

your concerns on this matter.

Thank you very much.

Ms. KITKA. Mr. Chairman, I wanted to ask if Isaac from

Kaktovik might be able to explain one thing to you. We were talking earlier today about your name, and he was explaining to us on

how in the Inupiaq language that they pronounce your name and

what that means in Inupiaq.

The CHAIRMAN. I hope it is good. [Laughter.]

Mr. AKOOTCHOOK. That means ‘‘iamulautuk’’—that means a good

person to help everyone of us since whatever we are. Julie, this is

important to, and down in Alaska it is really to help us with the

work. That means in the Alaun language, ‘‘iamulautuk’’—that is a

good person. You work for the whole people in the world.

The CHAIRMAN. I thank you very much. I hope my staff heard

that. [Laughter.]
28

In fact, I commented to my staff that I could very well be sitting

there because I look like most of you. [Laughter.]

The final panel, Director of the Division of Subsistence, Alaska

Department of Fish and Game in Washington, Mary Pete; and the

chairman of the Federal Subsistence Board of Nenanna, Alaska,

Mitch Demientieff. You will have to pronounce that name for me.

Mr. DEMIENTIEFF. I have been called worse than that, Senator.

it is Demientieff.

The CHAIRMAN. Ms. Pete.

STATEMENT OF MARY PETE, DIRECTOR OF THE DIVISION OF

SUBSISTENCE, ALASKA DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME

Ms. PETE. Thank you.

Chairman Inouye, thank you for this opportunity to address you

on this topic that has consumed almost all of my professional work.

My name is Mary Pete. I am the director of the Division of Subsistence for the State of Alaska, Department of Fish and Game. I

started out as a subsistence researcher in Western Alaska in 1984.

I am honored to be here to represent the State of Alaska.

For many Alaskans, subsistence is a core value. It is a lifeblood

of our cultural, spiritual, economic and physical well-being. It puts

food on the table and builds strong families. State and Federal

laws provide a priority for subsistence uses in Alaska. The crux of

the dilemma is the difference in who qualifies for the preference in

State and Federal law, as identified in an Alaska Supreme Court

decision in 1989.

All Alaskans potentially qualify for the preference under State

law, and only rural residents qualify under Federal law. Federal

public lands encompass approximately 60 percent of Alaska, so the

rural priority applies in most of the State. The State priority applies in the remaining 40 percent of Alaska. As you can imagine,

this dichotomy and dual management objectives creates management complexity and confusion for the public. The majority of Alaskans understand the concept of subsistence, recognize its importance, and clearly support it. Just 2 weeks ago, Alaska Governor

Tony Knowles announced another special session of the Alaska legislature to address subsistence. This session will begin following

completion of the current regular legislative session in mid-May.

The sixth such session in 13 years, the Governor is building in

more momentum than you have seen on this issue in recent years.

Earlier this month, Anchorage voters in a landslide, more than 72

percent, said they wanted the opportunity to vote on subsistence.

Just last week, the Catholic Church of Alaska issued a rare pastoral letter supporting a subsistence resolution. Last summer, the

Governor convened a Subsistence Summit of business, civic, religious, native, fishing and hunting leaders which then produced an

innovative draft constitutional amendment. That amendment is

currently pending in the Alaska legislature. Every poll indicates

that if allowed to vote on the issue, Alaskans will overwhelmingly

choose to protect subsistence. For more than a decade, Alaskans

have paid a high price for not allowing Alaskans to be heard. We

are not protecting subsistence as we should, and management of

much our fish and game has been surrendered to the Federal Government.
29

The urban-rural divide continues to grow. There are other issues

that make the urban-rural split even wider, but nothing approaches the frustration over the inability to permanently protect

subsistence. The State has had a subsistence priority law that

gives preference to rural residents for wild fish and game since

1978. Since then, the State has employed a division of researchers

to document and understand the role of subsistence hunting, fishing and gathering in the lives and communities of Alaskans, and

to assist the State’s management boards in implementing the subsistence priority law.

One of the attachments to this presentation summarizes what we

have learned after over 20 years of research on subsistence harvests and uses in Alaska. As expected, we have learned that subsistence is vital to the cultures and economies of rural Alaskans.

Subsistence use areas in the State, as defined by the Joint Boards

of Fisheries and Game, include 20 percent of the State’s population.

Although economies in small rural communities are mixed, in that

both need production of local wild resources and cash to exist, subsistence is the foundation of their sustainability. Jobs are few and

often seasonal, with costs of living being the highest in the Nation.

Access to key wild resources such as salmon, caribou, herring and

marine mammals is the reason Alaska Native communities are located where they are.

Family-based subsistence production and consumption groups

help to maintain the community cohesion and the sense of identity

in these primarily Alaska Native communities. Subsistence harvest

averages 375 pounds of wild fish and game per capita in rural communities, and provide nearly 44 million pounds of food per year at

an estimated strict weight replacement value of nearly $220 million.

This dollar estimate does not include the immeasurable value of

the sense of well-being and accomplishment of providing for one’s

family.

Subsistence happens in the context of families without public

funds—families who educate their youth in the intricacies of the

harvest and processing of wild foods and clothing and other crafts

made from its proceeds. The composition of subsistence harvests attests to the importance of fish in Alaska. Fish make up 60 percent

of the wild food harvested statewide and regional averages of up

to 82 percent in some coastal areas. Among the Yupiit of Western

Alaska, the word for food as a general category is also the word for

fish. So if you ask someone in Yup’ik if they have eaten, you will

be asking them if they have eaten fish.

I would like to return to the challenges I mentioned earlier associated with dual State–Federal management of subsistence uses.

We have had experience with dual management of game since

1990. Federal management of fisheries did not actively commence

until October 1999, but we expect that some of the same problems

that we witnessed with game management will occur with fisheries

management.

Dual State-Federal management of fish stocks compounds an already challenging endeavor, especially with declining returns of important species such as salmon. Economic disasters for salmon

have been declared for four out of five recent years in Western
30

Alaska. The State has implemented the subsistence priority by restricting or closing non-subsistence uses and scheduling fishing

times to allow subsistence users scattered throughout affected

drainages an opportunity to get what they can.

The narrow scope of Federal authority has disrupted relationships among different uses. The Alaska Board of Fisheries and

Game provide for subsistence uses first, then provide for other

uses—namely sport, commercial and personal use—based on the

availability of the resource.

In some cases, subsistence uses are inextricably linked with commercial uses such as the small-scale commercial fisheries along the

Yukon and Kuskokwim Rivers, and the boards know that change

in subsistence regulations can have effects on the commercial fisheries and vice versa. Cash generated from commercial uses is used

to support subsistence activities, especially when the people and

equipment are the same, as in the case of these small-scale commercial salmon and herring fisheries. The Federal Subsistence

Board, in its deliberation, does not consider uses other than subsistence. This approach creates a problem inasmuch as actions of

the Federal Board may unintentionally disrupt the relationship between subsistence and other uses. This can detrimentally affect

subsistence, as well as other uses.

State and Federal allocation procedures are not compatible. State

law requires that its management boards identify those fish stocks

and game populations subject to customary and traditional uses,

and to identify a specific allocation needed for subsistence use and

to provide an opportunity for that use. These procedural steps enable the boards to provide a priority for subsistence uses, and if the

harvestable surplus allows, to provide for other uses.

The Federal Board is under no obligation to explicitly identify

the stocks or populations of concern and the subsistence need, or

other uses prior to making a subsistence allocation. To provide a

subsistence priority and also accommodate as many other uses as

possible requires knowledge of the available resource and the full

range of competing uses. These differences and procedures and

mandates have resulted in lost hunting and fishing opportunity,

and under certain conditions can lead to over-harvest of the resource.

Other more specific problems or differences between State and

Federal management include in-season or real-time management

and the Federal approach to customary trade. Alaska’s fishery

management programs have been successful in part because of the

ability of on-site managers to effect in-season closures or openings

as required to assure conservation and allocation objectives are

met. These decisions must be made decisively on available information and are necessarily made on short notice.

Imposing the Federal Board has been problematic. In the summer of 2001, there were unnecessary closures for subsistence salmon fishing to State-qualified subsistence users in the Yukon and

Kuskokwim river drainages. Both the State and Federal subsistence laws recognize customary trade as a legitimate subsistence

use. The State boards receive proposals for regulations that define

and allow for particular customary trade practices. In effect, trade

is closed until opened by the board.
31

In contrast, the Federal Board takes the approach that trade is

allowed, yet unregulated unless the Federal Board acts to restrict

the activity. The Federal approach is a problem, given the controversial nature of this activity, the potential for this practice to

affect other uses including other subsistence uses, and the risk of

abuse with subsistence-caught fish being introduced into commercial markets.

The Federal program has filed proposed regulations on customary trade of salmon, and unless it follows overwhelming public

recommendation to defer action until thorough review and evaluation of its potential impacts is understood, stands to act on these

proposals this summer.

I do not want to leave the committee with the impression that

the State has been a whiny passive party to dual management. We

have initialed a Memorandum of Agreement with the Federal Office of Subsistence Management that outlines an effective, coordinated dual management approach. The State’s goals are to protect

the resource, provide for the subsistence priority, and for opportunities for other uses. We have been working on specific protocols

under the MOA to implement specific objectives, such as each government’s roles in sharing of information, in-season management,

and determinations on amounts necessary for subsistence uses, to

name a few protocols.

In these efforts, we have involved users, particular Alaska Native

tribes and organizations. Another attachment to this testimony is

a paper on collaborative management by the Alaska Department of

Fish and Game. It includes projects and initiatives we have been

or continue to be engaged in with various public groups. Effective

management of public resources is a partnership of man parties,,

not the least being those most dependent on the resource.

I would like to dispel the sense that the State has been wholly

recalcitrant on the subsistence impasse. As you have heard, there

have been five special legislative sessions called since 1990 to address this issue. As I noted earlier, Governor Knowles has called

three sessions himself and has just issued another call to begin

May 15. Resolutions for constitutional amendments and legislation

to change subsistence management have also been introduced. The

block in efforts to address the impasse have been a small minority

of State Senators in the Alaska legislature.

Mr. Chairman, we welcome participation of any member of this

committee in urging an Alaskan resolution of the subsistence dilemma. Comprehension of a subsistence way of life, lifestyle or livelihood requires recognition of its cultural, economic and nutritional

significance to Alaskans, particularly Alaska’s Native people. The

State will continue in its efforts to resolve the subsistence dilemma

because we believe unitary State management is best for the resource and its users.

This concludes my formal testimony. Thank you for your time.

[Prepared statement of Ms. Pete appears in appendix.]

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much, Ms. Pete.

And may I now recognize Chairman Demientieff.
32

STATEMENT OF MITCH DEMIENTIEFF, CHAIRMAN, FEDERAL

SUBSISTENCE BOARD

Mr. DEMIENTIEFF. Thank you, Chairman Inouye.

My name is Mitch Demientieff and I have been the Board Chairman for the Federal Assistance Board for the past seven years. We,

of course, as has been well-documented, been operating since 1990,

and more recently since 1999 doing fisheries. So I will not dwell

on that too much, as has been well-documented by previous testimony as well as our written testimony that we have submitted.

We are of course very concerned about the importance of subsistence and we congratulate you and the committee for having this

hearing because it does recognize the importance of that and it

gives the people of Alaska the opportunity to express to you what

those concerns are.

The strengths of our program in the wake of Alaska’s not being

able to recapture subsistence management on Federal lands are the

very strength of our programs. The foundation of the program is

within our Regional Advisory Councils. We have 98 members on 10

regional councils who give willingly of their time. It has been—we

demand very much from them. They do that on a volunteer basis,

and we are very proud, and it is the work that they do in their villages, in their areas that they serve, that brings the advice to the

Federal Board that allows us, or that make recommendations to us

that allow us to make decisions on their behalf for the way that

they wish to have their resources managed and their Federal subsistence uses per ANILCA implemented in their land.

So we really congratulate that. It has been a strength ever since

I have been on the Board and it continues to be, especially now

with the expanded role of the fisheries. So we really congratulate

those people and we continue to rely upon them. It gives us on-theground solid advice.

In addition, we have as Mary pointed out earlier, that we are

signing next week, on the 23rd, the MOA with the State and the

Federal. We had been operating under an interim MOA for some

time now, and we finally got it down to where we have got the

principal signatories together next week.

In addition, the Federal program has funded both a State liaison

and a Federal liaison, which we provided with our Federal funding

so that can continue to have somebody whose sole purpose is to

continue to provide a close working relationship with the State and

the Federal managers.

In addition, we have funded the State for several, or many different programs with regard to research activities for a specific species, that we share with the State, so that the Boards of Game and

the Board of Fish and our Board can utilize the same material. The

State has reciprocated. We use very much of the State’s own produced material to make our decisions as well.

So we feel that that is an important part of the efforts that we

have been trying to make.

We also have our partners in fisheries monitoring, where we are

contracting with tribes and other organizations in the State to do

research projects. Again, we share those with the regulatory makers, whether they be State or Federal, and we are letting the local

people—in many of those cases are doing those actual projects.
33

I point these things out because in the absence of the State of

Alaska not being able to manage, we do our best to have Alaskans

managing Alaska’s resources. And so we are really reaching out

with that regard.

And the final piece to that puzzle is the recently added tribal liaison. There have been some time now there has been a call for us

to do tribal consultations with the tribes in Alaska. We added that

position, and that position is actively consulting on every major decision that we make with the tribes in Alaska. We do that on request, whether it be a regional meeting, whether the person be requested to go actually to the village, and it has been a very valuable addition to our program.

In closing, Mr. Chairman, the Federal program since the inception continues to support the State recapturing management of

Alaska’s resources. So nothing has changed as far as that is concerned. We look forward to that date where that very thing happens. So we continue to be solid in that corner, and that has not

changed.

As we approach the questions, Mr. Chairman, I point out to you

if there are questions for me that I am not an administrator for the

Federal program. I am a part-time employee as the Chairman of

the Board. I get paid when we meet, basically, to shape policy and

to make regulations. So if I run into any questions that I cannot

answer, I will take responsibility to get the answer to you promptly. So I just point that out, because I can talk about policy and regulations—those kinds of things that I am actively involved in. But

being just a part-time employee, I will get you the answers. Besides

that, they will pay me to get you the answers.

So with that, I thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity.

[Prepared statement of Mr. Demientieff appears in appendix.]

The CHAIRMAN. I thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate it.

Before I call upon the other panelists, may I ask the both of you

a few questions? Ms. Pete, in listening to your testimony, am I correct to reach this interpretation that under Alaska State law the

word ‘‘rural’’ subsistence preference may potentially qualify all

Alaskans?

Ms. PETE. Mr. Chairman, that is correct. The rural provision remains in law, but in effect the Supreme Court decision has deemed

it unconstitutional, so all Alaskans qualify.

The CHAIRMAN. The Supreme Court of——

Ms. PETE. The Alaska Supreme Court.

The CHAIRMAN. So there is no Alaska Native preference?

Ms. PETE. No; potentially all Alaskans qualify, so there in effect

is no preference.

The CHAIRMAN. One of the witnesses testified that 2 percent of

all the fish and wildlife is taken for subsistence by Alaska Natives,

and the remaining 98 percent for recreational sport and commercial purposes—are those statistics correct?

Ms. PETE. The portion that is the subsistence output ranges from

2 to 4 percent, depending on the size of the commercial catch. The

commercial fishery fluctuates in part by the size of—primarily the

ground fish fishery, which is millions and millions of tons. That is
34

in the ballpark, and that is 2 to 4 percent of the total wild resource

production in the State is taken by rural residents for subsistence,

not Alaska Natives per se, but rural residents.

The CHAIRMAN. And the remaining 96 to 98 percent—— Ms. PETE. Approximately 94 to 96 percent is by commercial fishing, and the remaining is by sport use.

The CHAIRMAN. And do you have Alaska Natives involved in commercial fishing and sports fishing?

Ms. PETE. Yes; we do. And in fact, in parts of Western Alaska,

many commercial permit holders, commercial salmon and herring

permit holders are Alaska Native who are also engaged in subsistence.

The CHAIRMAN. Is that a large number?

Ms. PETE. Of the 700 to 800 permit holders on each of the two

major rivers, the Yukon and Kuskokwim, I would say the majority

of them are Alaska Native.

The CHAIRMAN. So they are involved in the bulk of commercial

fishing?

Ms. PETE. That is for in–State waters. The total of the wild resource output includes very large ground fish fisheries in the Bering Sea and Gulf of Alaska, and those as you may know are done

by factory trawlers that employ people from many different countries, not just Alaskans.

The CHAIRMAN. And your definition of rural applies only to Alaska lands, and not Federal lands.

Ms. PETE. That is correct.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Chairman, is it your understanding that 4

percent is taken by rural Alaskans?

Mr. DEMIENTIEFF. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. And of that 4 percent, how many are Alaska Natives?

Mr. DEMIENTIEFF. I would—let me see. I am not real sure of the

census counts with regard to that. I would imagine in the more

rural areas that definitely a majority of those would be. When you

get into some of the hub communities, the larger communities, you

get a little bit more non-native population in there. But those still

are classified as rural communities for our program.

The CHAIRMAN. The witnesses that appeared before your presentation all indicated that subsistence was absolutely necessary to

sustain life. Is that correct?

Mr. DEMIENTIEFF. Yes, sir; being a life-long subsistence user myself, because I still do—born and raised and still reside in

Nenanna, I understand that very completely. A large part of our

family’s food comes from the subsistence resource, but it is tied

with our society and also importantly with our cultural activities.

We have to have wild resources at our ceremonies and potlatches

and those types of things. It is an integral part of our cultural practices.

The CHAIRMAN. What is the geographic scope of your Board’s regulatory authority?

Mr. DEMIENTIEFF. About—— The CHAIRMAN. Does it just cover Federal lands?

Mr. DEMIENTIEFF. Right. About 230 million acres in Alaska, and

it is checkerboarded in different——
35

The CHAIRMAN. Does it include all waters within the borders?

Mr. DEMIENTIEFF. Navigable are still managed by the State.

The CHAIRMAN. But all other waters are within your jurisdiction?

Mr. DEMIENTIEFF. Right, within Federal jurisdiction. Right.

The CHAIRMAN. Does your Board have problems in dealing with

conflicting definitions of the term ‘‘rural’’?

Mr. DEMIENTIEFF. No; conflicting between the State’s definition— or, I’m not conflicting—— The CHAIRMAN. State and Federal—are they conflicting or are

they the same?

Mr. DEMIENTIEFF. Yes; they are conflicting. Well, no that is not

right exactly. I am not sure about the State’s point of view. I am

very clear about ours, but I am not sure about the State. As it relates to subsistence, of course, as Mary pointed out, potentially all

Alaska residents wherever they are are eligible for subsistence.

Whereas rural residents under the Federal program are eligible for

subsistence.

The CHAIRMAN. Have Federal agencies made any effort to establish cooperative management agreements with Alaska Natives to

implement the subsistence priority?

Mr. DEMIENTIEFF. Yes; and in recent years beyond that, we have

tried to on particularly thorny issues have tried to—we have remanded, the Board has remanded some issues back to local areas,

and actually have gone to include the State managers, the Federal

managers, our regional council representatives, and the State Fish

and Game Advisory Committee members to work out issues that

have been problematic issues. We have had good success in the last

few years. There have been at least one-half of different cases

where we have been able to resolve thorny issues with conflicting

land ownership and conflicting regulations.

So beyond cooperative, we also have that that is very important

to them.

The CHAIRMAN. What is the funding for protecting fish and the

wildlife resources essential for subsistence in Alaska?

Mr. DEMIENTIEFF. Mr. Chairman, that would be one of the things

I am going to have to get back with you on, on the funding, the

full funding breakdown. I have got a partial, but then I could get

you the full budget.

The CHAIRMAN. Has it increased or has it decrease?

Mr. DEMIENTIEFF. Well, yes, with the addition of the Fisheries

Program, it has increased. But I will get you a full breakdown of

that. That will be one of the things I will get.

The CHAIRMAN. I have other questions that are a bit technical in

nature, and might require the study of your management group.

May I submit them to you?

Mr. DEMIENTIEFF. Sure. Okay.

The CHAIRMAN. Will the others join us now?

Thank you very much, Ms. Pete.

I am not an Alaskan obviously, and therefore my knowledge of

Alaska is rather limited, although I believe I know more about

Alaska than most of the members of the Senate. But when we

speak of subsistence gathering of fish and wildlife, is it for sport

and recreation or is it for food and sustenance? I would like to have

a response from each of you.
36

Mr. GOLIA. Mr. Chairman, I consider myself a subsistence user.

I go out and generally catch 30 to 40 king salmon every year to

make king salmon strips it is part of I guess a family tradition. I

generally go out and get five moose per year—I mean caribou per

year, five caribou per year, and generally a moose every year. Generally, I would go about getting 20 gallons of salmon berries and

30 gallons of blackberries. If I did not, I would not be married with

my wife insisting that we go out and gather these berries for our

freezer. So I look at it as a way to feed my family.

The CHAIRMAN. Would your statement represent the activities of

your members?

Mr. GOLIA. Pardon me?

The CHAIRMAN. You serve as vice president of the Bristole Bay

Native Association, is that right?

Mr. GOLIA. I am listed as vice president of the Bristol Bay Native

Association, Mr. Chairman. That is not the case. I am an employee

of the Bristol Bay Native Association.

The CHAIRMAN. Do the members of the Bristol Bay Native Association engage in subsistence hunting and fishing for food or for

recreation?

Mr. GOLIA. I would say primarily food. I think a lot of the villages, many of them do not have employment opportunities. I think

that the only jobs you could find in some of our 30 communities is

maybe a job as a janitor at the school; maybe a job as the postmaster; maybe a job as a VPO, or village police officer; and maybe

a job teaching in the school. That is it.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Johnson.

Mr. JOHNSON. Yes, Mr. Chairman; as I mentioned earlier or as

I noted, I am with the Alaska Nanuuq Commission, and we are primarily involved in managing with the Fish and Wildlife the subsistence harvest of Nanuuq or of polar bears. I am real proud to

note that Isaac Akootchook is a member of the Alaska Nanuuq

Commission, and a very highly respected member at that.

But generally when we take polar bear, it is not for sport. It is

not for a trophy. We often usually take it on an opportunistic situation when are hunting for seals or walrus. But engaging in—I am

a marine mammal hunter, and I rely heavily on walrus and seals

in particular, in particular ugruk is my favorite seal. And we do

that for our food.

The fact that we enjoy it as much as I do or as much as we do

does not mean that we are out there sport hunting. We are not out

there to get trophies. When we do take a polar bear, we want to

take a smaller one because the skin is easier to work and the meat

is better. So we are not out there sport hunting for trophies. We

are out there for food and because it sustains our way of life and

our culture.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Lake.

Mr. LAKE. Yes, Mr. Chairman; the use of wild fish and game is

used primarily for food and also for sharing with relatives, elders

in the village and those that cannot hunt or fish for themselves.

The CHAIRMAN. So you are not taking it for trophies?

Mr. LAKE. I have never done one, so I do not know, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Williams.
37

Mr. WILLIAMS. Yes; I am a full-time hunter and fisherman, and

we depend on fish and game for food and for sustenance of our

health, and we depend on that food to survive. We have no regard

for biggest antlers or going for the trophy. I, for one, do not take

home the antlers of what I caught because we cannot eat it. But

for carving of those things, maybe we will take them home. But for

all the fish we catch, that I catch, and all the moose and the caribou, the bear, we take home and we use it for survival and we also

share with our elders in our community. So nothing is wasted, everything is used.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Yaska.

Mr. YASKA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The question was whether we take it for sport rather than sustenance or subsistence. And

the question of course, and within the interior of Alaska for moose,

king salmon, spruce chicken, ptarmigan, beaver, all of those species, and many more. Both game and fish are primarily for subsistence, if not exclusively for sustenance. And sustenance has been

developed and defined by the 16,000 people working in the interior

over thousands of years. It is a highly developed definition and it

is a highly treasured definition and not to be, of course, spoken

about lightly. Thought it is a great honor to be representing those

folks today, and certainly you honor that here by the hearing

today. Thank you.

The CHAIRMAN. As a matter of congressional courtesy, the transcript of this hearing will be shared with the legislature of Alaska.

If you had the opportunity to address the legislature in 2 minutes,

what would you tell the legislators?

Mr. GOLIA. I would request that they pass a vote on the constitutional amendment and actually let the people of Alaska vote on

this issue. They have I think held up that particular issue for years

now, and I think that the Alaskan people want to see a result to

that.

Mr. JOHNSON. Yes, Mr. Chairman; unfortunately many of the legislators that are in Alaska have come from other places. I think my

first request to them would be that they try to understand what

our needs are for the native people of Alaska as far as subsistence,

the spiritual values that we have in relation to that way of life, and

then to allow the people of Alaska, because there are many people

of Alaska who are not natives that understand us and support our

efforts at a subsistence priority, and I would ask the legislature,

please let the people of Alaska decide that.

Mr. LAKE. I would let them know and hope that they would understand that our cultural and traditional values to us are sacred

and holy, and that without these, there would be no life for us. And

that we need this life to pass on to our children that has been

passed on to us by our ancestors. And also that they give an opportunity for the people of Alaska to vote on the issue, and one point

is that my people, the Yup’ik Eskimo, in their annual convention

have indicated to the State of Alaska that they do not want to see

a constitutional amendment on subsistence unless there is a

change in the conscience of the State of Alaska concerning subsistence—a change of consciousness about that. And it would be so

right for them to do that.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you.
38

Mr. WILLIAMS. I would tell the legislature that Alaska has greatly benefited from rural areas—oil, gas, timber, minerals, gold. You

know, we have expended our resources to the benefit of all of Alaskans, and many have benefited from Alaska. Yet we continue to

live in third world conditions in Akiak. You know, I come from a

small village of 350, and from the area that is poorest of the poor.

And when I look at that, and with all the billions that have come

out of Alaska, we still are striving in having equal treatment by

State of Alaska. And as we have $30 billion, we still live and are

receiving those services that are not coming to us. But as for the

subsistence issue, I think that is the only thing that I am asking

for, is to protect my subsistence way of life that has been practiced

or has been handed down from generation to generation, and they

need to respect that. As we have heard here today, we really need

that for our survival, and it is not just sport or game. I think it

is for survival. So that is what I would tell them to do is to do the

right thing for our survival in Alaska as Alaska Native people.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Yaska.

Mr. YASKA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is almost a trick question. What do we want to tell them or what would we tell them?

We have heard hundreds of testifiers, perhaps thousands in the

last 12 years and many more years, actually, about the importance

of subsistence from rural folks and people far more eloquent than

I, elderly folks, and learned leaders from our region and throughout Alaska. I am not sure how else you could explain the importance of subsistence, the importance of getting along as people in

this great Nation. But there is not anything to fear among subsistence managers, among folks from rural Alaska. Do not think we

want all of the resources to ourselves. These are all of our resources in this Nation, and we can certainly come to agreement on

managing and sharing these resources. There is not anything to

fear. Thank you.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much. I am pleased to call upon

the vice chairman of the committee, Senator Ben Nighthorse

Campbell.

STATEMENT OF HON. BEN NIGHTHORSE CAMPBELL, U.S. SENATOR FROM COLORADO, VICE CHAIRMAN, COMMITTEE ON

INDIAN AFFAIRS

Senator CAMPBELL. Mr. Chairman, I apologize for not being here

throughout the whole hearing. I had an early conflict, and then as

you probably know, Secretary Rumsfeld was doing a classified

briefing on the problem in Afghanistan. One thing led to another,

and I just very frankly apologize to this committee that I could not

be here. But I have always been extremely interested in the plight

that traditional people have found themselves in when we deal

with subsistence. And when I think, of course I was not around

then, but as I hear from elders who in turn heard from their elders,

and then you compare it with what we go through now in which

you have to have a license or permit to be able to hunt in most

States, a license or permit to be able to fish in most states, a license or a permit to be able to use the things that were provided

by the Creator of all things for this earth.
39

It is really kind of amazing to me because it was not native peoples, whether they were Alaskan or here in the Lower 48, that depleted the whales. It was profiteering adventurers that killed them

off and boiled them down. It was not the native peoples. It was not

the native peoples that clubbed tens of thousands of harp seals just

for that beautiful white fur. The same thing—it was profiteering,

non-native peoples that did that. It was not the native peoples that

started killing walrus just to saw off the tusks. It was the ivory

traders. And it was not the native peoples that ever benefited from

all those things that were depleted.

I know people in the northwest part of our Nation now, native

peoples are fighting an endless battle just to try to preserve some

of the fishing rights they had for salmon when it was not them that

ever depleted the salmon. It was the commercial canners, as everybody knows, or anybody with a lick of sense ought to know. It was

never the native peoples.

And yet the native peoples are always the ones that have to suffer. It is the native peoples that always have to try to prevent more

erosion of the rights that they have historically had from the beginning of time, long before there was anybody else on the mainland

or in Alaska. They can probably track their own ancestry back hundreds if not thousands of years to a time when they did not have

to conform to all the laws we now have and they were not on the

defensive because somebody else killed off the animals.

I have been to Alaska a number of times, most of the times with

Senator Stevens for a variety of things, and have many friends that

live in Alaska, and I just know that in some cases Native Alaskans

are divided on issues. Some of them are divided on the issue we

are dealing with on the floor right now, whether we should open

ANWR and you are probably very aware of that debate that some

people who follow the caribou were saying we should not. Other

people believe that there are opportunities, and native people believe that there are opportunities and we should.

That is one thing when we have the community divided and we

are not quite sure what we ought to be doing to help Native Alaskans. But on the question of subsistence, I do not know of two native sides to that. If you are going to do the right thing, there is

only one side and that side is that we ought to protect the rights

of the aboriginal people that have had that right, used that right,

have every right to continue it, whether it is under a court of law

in the United States or under a legislative body here in Washington, or under just a basic right in the realm of humankind and

human suffering and human subsistence—it seems to me they have

that first right.

I just wanted to tell this committee that Senator Inouye has always been on the side of native peoples in the fight for fairness

here in Washington, and I have always been by his side, and want

you to know that I know something about it. I have probably a lot

more to learn, but you have got at least two friends on this committee. I want you to know that.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much.

Are you not glad you waited to hear the words of wisdom?
40

Senator CAMPBELL. My problem is I always get mad, as you

know, Senator Inouye. [Laughter.]

The CHAIRMAN. I would like to announce that the record of this

hearing will remain open for 2 weeks, during which time if you

wish to submit additional testimony or if you wish to make corrections, please feel free to do so. And we will also be submitting questions to Mr. Demientieff for his response.

So with that, I thank all of you for traveling long distances to

be with us. We will do our best to convince the members in the

Alaska legislature to do the right thing. Your words will be read

by them.

[Whereupon, at 4:12 p.m., the committee was adjourned, to reconvene at the call of the Chair.]
(41)

APPENDIX

ADDITIONAL MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD

PREPARED STATEMENT OF ROSITA WORL, PH.D., SEALASKA HERITAGE INSTITUTE

Honorable Senator Inouye and other members of the U.S. Senate Committee on

Indian Affairs. I would like to express my gratitude to the committee for holding

this oversight hearing on Subsistence Hunting and Fishing in the State of Alaska.

I am honored and humbled that you have been invited me to testify before this committee. The challenges to subsistence protections and the subsistence lifestyles of

Alaska Natives are critical, and my testimony will address the necessity of maintaining the Federal protections as they exist under the Alaska National Interest

Lands Conservation Act of 1980.

I am Rosita Worl. I am a member of the Board of Directors of Sealaska Corporation, which was created by Congress in the settlement of our aboriginal land claims.

I sit on the Board of Directors of the Alaska Federation of Natives and serve as the

Chairperson of its Subsistence Committee. I have a joint appointment as the President of the Sealaska Heritage Institute and a professor of anthropology at the University of Alaska Southeast. .

In my testimony, I will be drawing on both my professional training and research

and my personal knowledge and experience as a participant in the subsistence culture of the Tlingit. I will apply these perspectives to discuss the significance of subsistence hunting and fishing in Alaska. I hold a Ph.D. from Harvard University in

Anthropology. My subsistence studies began in 1975 when I went to the Arctic to

study the political development of the North Slope Inupiat. Since that time I have

conducted research throughout the circumpolar Arctic and Alaska. I have served on

various scientific committees of the National Science Foundation, the Smithsonian

Institution, the Alaska Eskimo Whaling Commission and the National Scientific

Committee for the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill Studies. I have written numerous scientific articles on subsistence economies and Alaska Native cultures and have a general understanding of the significance of subsistence.

Today my subsistence studies are sometimes referred to as the early work of subsistence research in Alaska. I believe I was among the first anthropologists to study

subsistence as an integrated socioeconomic system and to assess its interrelationship with the cash economy. This was in part due to the development of economic

anthropology as a theoretical approach. I have applied both qualitative and quantitative methodological approaches to my study of subsistence.

It has often been said that subsistence cannot be defined, and Alaska Natives generally describe it as a ‘‘Way of Life.’’ I beg your indulgence if my testimony sounds

like a lecture, but I hasten to add that in the need for brevity, it may seem as if

I am oversimplifying the complexity of the subsistence systems in Alaska. We must

have a basic understanding of the dynamic socioeconomic subsistence systems as

they exist today. This knowledge is necessary if we are to ensure that the legal regimes of both the Federal and State government protect the subsistence lifestyles

of Alaska Natives and rural Alaska, and second in order to analyze how legislation

has the capacity to protect or undermine subsistence activities.
42

In spite of the overwhelming problems imperiling Alaska Native societies, their

cultures remain vibrant. Their languages and cultures have persisted, although

changed, despite decades of governmental pressure to assimilate them into the larger society and the extensive forces of sociocultural impacts impinging on their communities. They are among the last societies in North America, who remain largely

dependent and culturally attached to a hunting and gathering way of life. The last

nomadic hunters in the United States settled in a permanent community in some

60 years ago. Today they continue to practice their ancient ceremonies and to hold

the worldview and values of their ancestors. For the United States, they represent

a rich cultural resource that is worthy of protection.

Subsistence, as it is practiced by Alaska Natives, contains three basic interrelated

components: Economic, social, and cultural. It operates as a cohesive, adaptive and

functioning system.

The cultural component includes the values and ideologies that govern and direct

subsistence behavior or activities. For example, the value of sharing is key to subsistence and the survival of Native societies. The young are socialized into the value

of sharing with kin and community members. Young hunters are taught to share

their first take whatever it may be—seal, caribou, or fish and they are rewarded

for their behavior. Significant amounts of sharing takes place in ceremonies such

as the whaling or seal feast or memorial rituals. Sharing also occurs as part of the

value that acknowledges the status of elders. They are given special shares and

parts of an animal. This value of sharing with elders functions in many ways like

the social security system in which individuals receive retirement benefits. Single

women, who act as head of households, also receive special shares.

The cultural component also includes ideologies and beliefs such as the recognition that wildlife has spirits and that Native people have a kinship or special relationship with them. This relationship obligates Native people to adhere to certain

codes of conduct and to treat animals in prescriptive ways to ensure success in future hunts and to assure that animals will return to be harvested. You may have

heard Native Peoples say that animals ‘‘give’’ themselves to the hunter. This implies, that it is not skill of the hunter that determines success, but rather it is the

animal who decides, based on the proper behavior of the hunter, who will be rewarded in the hunt. These cultural values also serve to protect the animal population base and are the basis of the conservation ethic that has been attributed to

traditional Native practices. In some ways these ideologies and the accompanying

practices can be compared to the effects of the concept of sustained yield harvests.

For example, some groups have taboos on hunting in certain sites which serve to

restrict hunting areas and levels.

The social aspect of subsistence refers to the way in which Native people organize

themselves to participate in subsistence activities. This socioeconomic organization

is based on some form of kinship whether it is along a bilateral kinship system characteristic of the Inupiat and Yup’ik or a clan or some other group membership such

as that adopted by the Siberian Yup’ik of St. Lawrence Island or the Athabascans

of Interior Alaska. More often today you will hear references made to the extended

family as the hunting unit. It may, however, also include formal partnerships with

non-kin. The important dimension here is that the subsistence system operates as

a group activity rather than that of a sole hunter pursing game.

These social relationships and participation in subsistence endeavors also function

as an educational system or facilitates the training of the young. Not only are the

young socialized into the cultural ideologies and cosmologies of their society, they

are instructed in the methods of hunting and preserving subsistence foods. They are

taught about the environment and wildlife and how to read climatic changes, ice

conditions or changing tides.

The third element of subsistence includes the economic aspect, which consists of

the production, distribution and exchange and utilization of natural resources. Production includes the procurement and preservation of subsistence foods.

Distribution and exchange refer to the movement of subsistence goods or the sharing of subsistence foods through the social network. Since land was traditionally

owned in common, utilization of land and resources require the sharing of resources.

It generally begins with the initial distribution at hunting or fishing sites followed

by a secondary distribution through extended kin networks and the ceremonial

sharing. Subsistence economies also include the exchange of surplus resources for

resources that may not be readily or locally available. Utilization includes the consumption of wildlife and natural resources for food and their use for arts and crafts

or other utilitarian objects or equipment such as walrus or bearded seal skins,

which are used in the manufacture of boats and other items.

Alaska rural communities are characterized by a dual or mixed economy. In today’s subsistence economy, cash is a vital element. It is necessary to purchase rifles,
43

1The Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act recognizes the significance of

a group orientation with the designation that items of cultural patrimony should be subject to

repatriation claims.

ammo and other tools, supplies, equipment such as snow mobiles. Cash is acqui red

in multiple ways. The hunter or spouse may be a full or part time wage earner or

a family member may earn income through the sale of arts and craft or subsistence

service. An elderly member of the social unit may receive a transfer payment and

contribute portions of this income to support the subsistence enterprise.

The importance of the subsistence economy in Alaska cannot be overstated. It provides a major portion of the diet in rural Alaska and Native households. The subsistence studies conducted by the State of Alaska attest to this importance. The significance of subsistence can be seen as even more important with the absence or

limited wage income opportunities in rural Alaska or its seasonal nature. The limitations on wage income opportunities in rural Alaska are further exacerbated by the

highest cost of living within the United States. Without a subsistence economy, hunger would be the norm in Alaska Native and rural communities. These assertions

are all verifiable by hard statistical data.

Policymakers and social scientists once simply assumed that subsistence hunters

and gathers would move in a unilateral direction from subsistence hunting and fishing to a cash economy. The history and case study of Alaska Natives refute this assumption. However, the persistence of the subsistence lifestyles of Alaska Natives

cannot be attributed to the absence or constraints of wage opportunities in their

communities. Alaska Natives have opposed legislative measures that cast subsistence as welfare or portrays it as a form of underemployment. This perspective ignores the social, cultural and ideological importance of subsistence and the attachment that Natives have to their way of life.

Despite the changes within Native communities, Alaska Natives remain culturally

distinct from the larger American culture and society. Their worldview differs in

that they recognize and maintain a special or a spiritual relationship to wildlife. I

wear the Eagle on my clothing and the Sun and Shark on my jewelry, not for decorative or aesthetic reasons, but because of the relationship I have with their spirits

and with my ancestors who acquired these rights and relationships for me and other

members of my clan. Another major cultural difference between Natives and nonNatives, that is particularly relevant to the subsistence issue, is that Native societies maintain a group orientation rather than the individualistic nature of the

American society and American values.

Native cultural and religious ideologies can sometimes be protected under the

freedom of religion’policies and laws. For example, in the Carlos Frank case, the

Athabascans won a lawsuit against the State of Alaska in which they had been

charged for hunting a moose out of season. In this case, the moose was required

for a traditional ceremony. Alaska Natives are required to feed the spirits of their

ancestors.

Laws embody the values of their society, and American law generally reflects the

individualistic nature of this society rather than the group orientation of Native societies. American values, however, recognize the importance of cultural diversity.

Our laws and policies theoretical embrace the philosophical construct of cultural diversity, but this does not necessarily mean they will reflect the group orientation

value held by Alaska Natives and American Indians1. However, the Federal Government does accord Alaska Natives and American Indians a special political status.

This unique political status, which differs from that of all other Americans, implicitly offers the opportunity to acknowledge and protect the different cultural values

that characterize American Indian and Alaska Native societies. In the case of Alaska Natives, their cultural values and subsistence protections were possible, in part,

through the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980.

ANILCA is imperfect in fully protecting the cultures of Alaska Natives, but fortunately, as it has been interpreted and implemented, ANILCA has offered the only

measure of protection for subsistence against the State of Alaska, which has refused

to recognize a rural subsistence hunting and fishing priority. Title VIII of ANILCA

requires that ‘‘subsistence uses’’ be given priority over the taking of fish and wildlife

for other purposes. It defines ‘‘subsistence uses’’ as the ‘‘customary and traditional

uses by rural Alaska residents. . . ’’ ANILCA provides a priority for rural residents

of communities that have a customary and traditional uses of a particular resource.

I am not a lawyer, but as an anthropologist, I note the significance of ANILCA is

that it provides protection for ‘‘communities’’ or for groups rather than individualbased uses and protection based on customary and traditional uses.

The State of Alaska has not yet adopted an amendment to its constitution to give

a subsistence priority to rural Alaska. The prevalent argument advanced by a small,
44

but vocal minority of Alaskans is to oppose a constitutional amendment because it

violates ‘‘equal’’ access to fish and wildlife. This argument is used to support amendments to ANILCA rather than to bring the State into compliance with Federal law.

My purpose is not to discuss the contradictions and fallacy of the equality argument

as it is used in the subsistence debate. All laws make distinctions among classes

of people and citizens, and in Alaska, its citizens were willing to amend the State

Constitution to give a small number of individuals the right of access to most all

of Alaska’s fisheries through the Lilmited Entry Permit System (less than 14,000

permit holders take 97 percent of the fishery resources in Alaska). Additionally,

Alaska extends to only a 1,000 or more individuals the right to hold guiding perrnits

to large tracts of land.

It is important to assess the underlying meaning of the equal access argument

as advanced by the subsistence opponents to understand the potential ramifications

should they be successful in amending ANILCA to embrace their ideology. I would

suggest that they seek to advance an ‘‘individualistic’’ subsistence priority rather

than that embodied in ANILCA that recognizes a rural, community-based traditional and customary subsistence use. This ‘‘equality’’ argument as it is used in the

subsistence debate is ludicrous given the earlier constitutional amendment that provided for an inequitable allocation of natural resources and in view of the scope of

political and fiscal inequity endured by Alaska Natives.

I have attempted to describe the dynamics and significance of Alaska Native subsistence economies and culture. I suggest that ANILCA, as it is written, protects

the group realities and nature of Alaska Native subsistence activities. The Native

community and AFN have resisted both legal and political attempts that would alter

these protections. I would pray that Congress will not condone the 12 further erosion of subsistence and cultural protection for its indigenous populations. I would

hope that Congress will see that ANILCA is a means to ensure the cultural survival

of Alaska Natives and to maintain the rich cultural diversity of this country. I

would hope that Congress will continue to support and urge the State of Alaska to

advance a constitutional amendment that brings it into compliance with ANILCA.

It would be my hope that Congress will continue to support ANILCA as it is written, unless in its wisdom, it should choose to adopt a Native subsistence priority.
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216

Æ