- Joined
- Apr 3, 2019
- Messages
- 22,912
- Reaction score
- 10,109
- Location
- Alaska (61.5°N, -149°W)
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
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.
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?
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?