[Senate Hearing 107-456]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
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
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
79-754 WASHINGTON : 2002
_____________________________________________________________________________
For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512-1800
Fax: (202) 512-2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON INDIAN AFFAIRS
DANIEL K. INOUYE, Hawaii, Chairman
BEN NIGHTHORSE CAMPBELL, Colorado, Vice Chairman
FRANK MURKOWSKI, Alaska KENT CONRAD, North Dakota
JOHN McCAIN, Arizona, HARRY REID, Nevada
PETE V. DOMENICI, New Mexico DANIEL K. AKAKA, Hawaii
CRAIG THOMAS, Wyoming PAUL WELLSTONE, Minnesota
ORRIN G. HATCH, Utah BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota
JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota
MARIA CANTWELL, Washington
Patricia M. Zell, Majority Staff Director/Chief Counsel
Paul Moorehead, Minority Staff Director/Chief Counsel
(ii)
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
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
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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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. 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 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?
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 traditions 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 long-term 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.
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 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 testimony 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.
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 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
Yukon-Kuskokwim Delta Goose Management Plan between the
Association of Village Council Presidents and the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife.
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 Yukon-Kuskokwim 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 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 INTER-TRIBAL
COUNCIL
Mr. Williams. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, members of the
committee.
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 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.
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 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
Inter-Tribal 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 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.
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 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.]
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.
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 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.
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.
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-the-ground 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.
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 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----
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.]
=======================================================================
A P P E N D I X
----------
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.
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, 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 non-Natives, 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 Indians\1\.
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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 individual-based 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, 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.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9754.001
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9754.002
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9754.003
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9754.004
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9754.005
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9754.006
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9754.007
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9754.008
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9754.009
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9754.010
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9754.011
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9754.012
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9754.013
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9754.014
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9754.015
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9754.016
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9754.017
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9754.018
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9754.019
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9754.020
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9754.021
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9754.022
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9754.023
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9754.024
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9754.025
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9754.026
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9754.027
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9754.028
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9754.029
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9754.030
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9754.031
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9754.032
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9754.033
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9754.034
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9754.035
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9754.036
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9754.037
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9754.038
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9754.039
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9754.040
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9754.041
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9754.042
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9754.043
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9754.044
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9754.045
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9754.046
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9754.047
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9754.048
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9754.049
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9754.050
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9754.051
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9754.052
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9754.053
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9754.054
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9754.055
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9754.056
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9754.057
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9754.058
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9754.059
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9754.060
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9754.061
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9754.062
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9754.063
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9754.064
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9754.065
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9754.066
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9754.067
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9754.068
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9754.069
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9754.070
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9754.071
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9754.072
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9754.073
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9754.074
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9754.075
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9754.076
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9754.077
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9754.078
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9754.079
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9754.080
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9754.081
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9754.082
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9754.083
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9754.084
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9754.085
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9754.086
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9754.087
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9754.088
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9754.089
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9754.090
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9754.091
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9754.092
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9754.093
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9754.094
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9754.095
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9754.096
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9754.097
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9754.098
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9754.099
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9754.100
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9754.101
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9754.102
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9754.103
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9754.104
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9754.105
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9754.106
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9754.107
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9754.108
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9754.109
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9754.110
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9754.111
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9754.112
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9754.113
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9754.114
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9754.115
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9754.116
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9754.117
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9754.118
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9754.119
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9754.120
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9754.121
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9754.122
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9754.123
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9754.124
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9754.125
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9754.126
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9754.127
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9754.128
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9754.129
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9754.130
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9754.131
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9754.132
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9754.133
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9754.134
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9754.135
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9754.136
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9754.137
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9754.138
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9754.139
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9754.140
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9754.141
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9754.142
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9754.143
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9754.144
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9754.145
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9754.146
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9754.147
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9754.148
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9754.149
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9754.150
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9754.151
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9754.152
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9754.153
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9754.154
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9754.155
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9754.156
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9754.157
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9754.158
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9754.159
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9754.160
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9754.161
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9754.162
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9754.163
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9754.164
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9754.165
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9754.166
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9754.167
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9754.168
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9754.169
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9754.170
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9754.171
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9754.172