How is this any different than Native Corporations selecting river and beach access lands that were commonly used by both whites and natives that were the only reasonable access points, then restricting non-native users unless they paid access fees? This family purchased these lands lawfully but 
subsistence convenience  out weighed lawful ownership? So in reality just who does own this parcel of land? If it is the family they are owed access fees just like non-natives must pay  in many areas of Alaska if they want to access Native lands. If it is lawful for Natives to charge for access to their lands the same law must work for non-natives.