[Alaska] Subsistence Management

[Glitch]

There has been a long standing issue between the way the State of Alaska deals with subsistence management and the way the federal government deals with the issue, and it began with the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA) of 1980.

Under Article VIII, Section 3 of Alaska's State Constitution, "[w]herever occurring in their natural state, fish, wildlife, and waters are reserved to the people for common use." Which means that it does not matter where you live, whether you are rich or poor, all of Alaska's fish and wildlife are available to everyone. There is no discrimination of any kind. Furthermore, Article VIII, Section 17 of Alaska's State Constitution states: "Laws and regulations governing the use or disposal of natural resources shall apply equally to all persons similarly situated with reference to the subject matter and purpose to be served by the law or regulation." This was written and passed by a two-thirds majority of Alaskans in 1956.

Then comes along ANILCA in 1980, which specifically discriminates between urban and rural residents, in violation of the Equal Protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the US Constitution. In 1989 the Alaska Supreme Court in McDowell v. State of Alaska held the federal rural preference to be unconstitutional, violating Article VIII, Section 3, 15, and 17 of the Alaska State Constitution. It should also be noted that there are no urban areas on federal lands, it is entirely rural (meaning it has roads) or bush (meaning it has no roads).

Now, there has been a recent attempt by one Alaskan legislator to introduce an amendment to Alaska's State Constitution, imposing this federal discrimination and giving the State the means to discriminate in other areas.

Alaska House Joint Resolution #22 [PDF]

Needless to say, the Alaska Native organizations are not happy with this proposed amendment. The author of the bill also acknowledges that the bill will not get the two-thirds majority required from the State legislature.

Lawmaker proposes Alaska Constitution amendment to resolve federal-state subsistence management

A lawmaker from Kotzebue is seeking to amend the Alaska Constitution to resolve a longstanding conflict between the state and federal government on subsistence management. But multiple Alaska Native groups and Northwest Arctic leaders are speaking out against the measure.

www.kyuk.org

Keep in mind that many of Alaskan natives also live in the few urban areas that Alaska has, making up about 20% of the total population. While I am not an Alaskan native, I would qualify under ANILCA for subsistence since I live in a rural area, and not within a town or city limits. Personally, I think the Alaska State Constitution is correct and no one should be discriminated against with regard to subsistence. It doesn't matter if they are Alaskan native, urban, or rural. Everyone should have equal access to the same resources, and the government should not be discriminatory on any basis.

Should Alaska keep its non-discriminatory law, or impose the federal discrimination through an amendment to the Alaska State Constitution, as is being proposed?

 

[bongsaway]

There has been a long standing issue between the way the State of Alaska deals with subsistence management and the way the federal government deals with the issue, and it began with the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA) of 1980.

Under Article VIII, Section 3 of Alaska's State Constitution, "[w]herever occurring in their natural state, fish, wildlife, and waters are reserved to the people for common use." Which means that it does not matter where you live, whether you are rich or poor, all of Alaska's fish and wildlife are available to everyone. There is no discrimination of any kind. Furthermore, Article VIII, Section 17 of Alaska's State Constitution states: "Laws and regulations governing the use or disposal of natural resources shall apply equally to all persons similarly situated with reference to the subject matter and purpose to be served by the law or regulation." This was written and passed by a two-thirds majority of Alaskans in 1956.

Then comes along ANILCA in 1980, which specifically discriminates between urban and rural residents, in violation of the Equal Protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the US Constitution. In 1989 the Alaska Supreme Court in McDowell v. State of Alaska held the federal rural preference to be unconstitutional, violating Article VIII, Section 3, 15, and 17 of the Alaska State Constitution. It should also be noted that there are no urban areas on federal lands, it is entirely rural (meaning it has roads) or bush (meaning it has no roads).

Now, there has been a recent attempt by one Alaskan legislator to introduce an amendment to Alaska's State Constitution, imposing this federal discrimination and giving the State the means to discriminate in other areas.

Alaska House Joint Resolution #22 [PDF]

Needless to say, the Alaska Native organizations are not happy with this proposed amendment. The author of the bill also acknowledges that the bill will not get the two-thirds majority required from the State legislature.

Lawmaker proposes Alaska Constitution amendment to resolve federal-state subsistence management

A lawmaker from Kotzebue is seeking to amend the Alaska Constitution to resolve a longstanding conflict between the state and federal government on subsistence management. But multiple Alaska Native groups and Northwest Arctic leaders are speaking out against the measure.

www.kyuk.org

Keep in mind that many of Alaskan natives also live in the few urban areas that Alaska has, making up about 20% of the total population. While I am not an Alaskan native, I would qualify under ANILCA for subsistence since I live in a rural area, and not within a town or city limits. Personally, I think the Alaska State Constitution is correct and no one should be discriminated against with regard to subsistence. It doesn't matter if they are Alaskan native, urban, or rural. Everyone should have equal access to the same resources, and the government should not be discriminatory on any basis.

Should Alaska keep its non-discriminatory law, or impose the federal discrimination through an amendment to the Alaska State Constitution, as is being proposed?

It's your party's representative trying to give the state the authority to change the rules and abandon the current law. Republicans, get it, your party.

 

[Bok Tuklo]

Alaska is an interesting place. I’m not sure our usual understanding of Republican vs Democrat apply.

 

[Glitch]

It's your party's representative trying to give the state the authority to change the rules and abandon the current law. Republicans, get it, your party.

I'm not a Republican, but thanks for demonstrating that you have nothing intelligent to say, as usual.

 

[Manc Skipper]

So game is free to "harvest" by those on living at subsistence level? That would naturally exclude the rich and much of the middle class, who have no need to supplement their diets to survive.

 

[Glitch]

Alaska is an interesting place. I’m not sure our usual understanding of Republican vs Democrat apply.

That is certainly true. The State House could have a majority of Republicans, but several of those Republicans would then choose to caucus with Democrats, giving the Democrats the majority vote in the State House, even though there are a majority of Republicans. The overwhelming majority of Democrats in Alaska are also very pro-Second Amendment, which sharply contrasts with Democrats in the lower-48. The lower-48 standard as to what is a Republican and what is a Democrat does not apply in Alaska.

 

[Glitch]

So game is free to "harvest" by those on living at subsistence level? That would naturally exclude the rich and much of the middle class, who have no need to supplement their diets to survive.

Alaska's State Constitution does not exclude anyone.

It does not matter where you live or the amount of money you have, any Alaskan resident can apply and receive a subsistence permit. However, there are only certain areas in Alaska where subsistence hunting and fishing are allowed. If they are outside of those subsistence areas, then they require a Personal Use permit. Generally speaking, subsistence is used for customary or traditional hunting and fishing practices, while Personal Use is used for non-customary or non-traditional hunting and fishing practices.

Neither the fish nor the game taken under a subsistence nor Personal Use permit may be sold or bartered.

I personally have never applied for a subsistence permit, but I have applied and received a few Personal Use permits. A Personal Use permit for Chitna on the Copper River, for example, allowed me to take 25 salmon (only one could be a King) per household, plus 10 salmon for each dependent in my household.

Subsistence is particularly important for those who live in the bush (not on the road system), because they have no local grocery stores. Anything they want to buy from stores has to be purchased and then flown into their location, which can be very expensive. Which means that the majority of their food is going to come from the land. I live in rural Alaska (on the road system) and only got between 20% and 25% of my food from the land. The rest came from local grocery stores.

I don't require a subsistence permit. Since turning 60 years old I haven't had the need for one. At age 60 Alaskan residents get free hunting and fishing licenses. All I have to do is send in a harvest report to the State letting them know what fish I took where, and what game I took and their location. Naturally, I am still required to abide by Alaska's fishing and hunting regulations. At age 70 I don't hunt and forage any longer, but I do my best to catch ~250 pounds of salmon every season.

 

[Grand Mal]

Alaska's State Constitution does not exclude anyone.

It does not matter where you live or the amount of money you have, any Alaskan resident can apply and receive a subsistence permit. However, there are only certain areas in Alaska where subsistence hunting and fishing are allowed. If they are outside of those subsistence areas, then they require a Personal Use permit. Generally speaking, subsistence is used for customary or traditional hunting and fishing practices, while Personal Use is used for non-customary or non-traditional hunting and fishing practices.

Neither the fish nor the game taken under a subsistence nor Personal Use permit may be sold or bartered.

I personally have never applied for a subsistence permit, but I have applied and received a few Personal Use permits. A Personal Use permit for Chitna on the Copper River, for example, allowed me to take 25 salmon (only one could be a King) per household, plus 10 salmon for each dependent in my household.

Subsistence is particularly important for those who live in the bush (not on the road system), because they have no local grocery stores. Anything they want to buy from stores has to be purchased and then flown into their location, which can be very expensive. Which means that the majority of their food is going to come from the land. I live in rural Alaska (on the road system) and only got between 20% and 25% of my food from the land. The rest came from local grocery stores.

I don't require a subsistence permit. Since turning 60 years old I haven't had the need for one. At age 60 Alaskan residents get free hunting and fishing licenses. All I have to do is send in a harvest report to the State letting them know what fish I took where, and what game I took and their location. Naturally, I am still required to abide by Alaska's fishing and hunting regulations. At age 70 I don't hunt and forage any longer, but I do my best to catch ~250 pounds of salmon every season.

Do you catch those fish in the river?

 

[Glitch]

Do you catch those fish in the river?

Mostly from rivers, but also just off shore in the ocean. I haven't been on a charter in more than a decade. Seward has a nice run of Silvers that can be easily caught from shore. During the right time of year they will even jump directly into your boat, no fishing pole required.

 

[bongsaway]

I'm not a Republican, but thanks for demonstrating that you have nothing intelligent to say, as usual.

Do you vote Republican? If you aren't one, why do you support the gop?

 

[Glitch]

Do you vote Republican? If you aren't one, why do you support the gop?

I haven't voted for a Republican presidential candidate since 1992. I have only voted for two Republicans candidates; once in 1972 for Nixon, and twice for Bush41 in 1988 and 1992. Everyone else has been either Independent or a member of the Veterans Party or the Constitution Party. Although, I did vote for a Libertarian candidate once. I was obviously not myself that election year.

I certainly do not support the GOP. As my "Political Leaning" plainly indicates, I am a conservative and the GOP hasn't been anywhere close to being conservative in multiple decades. The last time an argument can be made that the Republicans were conservative was in 1998, when Newt Gingrich was still Speaker of the House, but not since then.

 

[bongsaway]

I haven't voted for a Republican presidential candidate since 1992. I have only voted for two Republicans candidates; once in 1972 for Nixon, and twice for Bush41 in 1988 and 1992. Everyone else has been either Independent or a member of the Veterans Party or the Constitution Party. Although, I did vote for a Libertarian candidate once. I was obviously not myself that election year.

I certainly do not support the GOP. As my "Political Leaning" plainly indicates, I am a conservative and the GOP hasn't been anywhere close to being conservative in multiple decades. The last time an argument can be made that the Republicans were conservative was in 1998, when Newt Gingrich was still Speaker of the House, but not since then.

You sure do a good job of supporting a party that you are not a part of, no?

 

[Glitch]

You sure do a good job of supporting a party that you are not a part of, no?

Just because I utterly despise anyone associated with the Democratic Party and all leftist filth, does not mean I support Republicans. Nor can you cite any post that I have ever made in support of Republicans. Which makes this yet another one of your leftist delusional fantasies, as usual.

 

[bongsaway]

Just because I utterly despise anyone associated with the Democratic Party and all leftist filth, does not mean I support Republicans. Nor can you cite any post that I have ever made in support of Republicans. Which makes this yet another one of your leftist delusional fantasies, as usual.

I see, you hate everyone equally?

 

[Jason Warfield]

Just because I utterly despise anyone associated with the Democratic Party and all leftist filth, does not mean I support Republicans. Nor can you cite any post that I have ever made in support of Republicans. Which makes this yet another one of your leftist delusional fantasies, as usual.

Technically speaking, the part of the Alaskan state constitution that you cited where common use is a communist policy given that all economic and social barriers are considered null and void concerning that point of common use.

Now, you and I will both agree that it really wasn't passed in the effort to create a communist society. Intent with common use, however, is certainly a leftist principal.

So, you may want to revise your "Democratic Party and all leftist filth" statement as you appear to support this leftist policy.

 

[Grand Mal]

Just because I utterly despise anyone associated with the Democratic Party and all leftist filth, does not mean I support Republicans. Nor can you cite any post that I have ever made in support of Republicans. Which makes this yet another one of your leftist delusional fantasies, as usual.

Oh look, more proof that maturity, intelligence and thoughtful consideration are in the purview of the left.
'Utterly despise', 'leftist filth', if you were making an effort to sound satirically juvenile and simple-minded you couldn't improve on your everyday production. You're an 'Onion'- worthy rightist. You're like an own-goal every time you post. Other rightists roll their eyes and mutter, "Just shut the **** up!"