"JUNEAU UPDATE"

Kodiak Daily Mirror Publication Date of July 17, 1998

On Monday, July 20, 1998 the Alaska State Legislature will once again convene into a special session to try and resolve the long-standing subsistence dilemma.

Although this can be a complicated issue, I want to attempt to give you first, a brief background, and then a synopsis of what has to happen to avoid a federal take over of our subsistence fisheries.

Article VIII of Alaska’s Constitution is entitled: Natural Resources. No other state constitution has a separate article devoted exclusively to natural resources. It signifies the importance of minerals, fish and wildlife in the history of Alaska’s development, and the expectation that these resources would continue to be significant in the future of this state.

A key reason for statehood was the desire to escape from restrictive federal policies hampering the utilization of Alaska’s resources. This article sets the state’s resource policy, with the clear intent to encourage the development of our resources. Within this article, the fisheries are recognized as belonging to the state. The fish are reserved to the people for common use.

Article I of the state’s constitution talks about the inherent rights of Alaska’s citizens. It states in part; "that all persons are equal and entitled to equal rights, opportunities, and protection under the law." A number of very controversial legislative actions have been challenged in court as violating this "equal protection clause." These include subsistence laws (that give preference to rural residents), local hire measures, and some residency requirements for certain state programs, such as the PFD dividend and longevity bonus requirements.

A rural priority was written into the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA) of 1980 to guarantee subsistence rights for Alaska Natives who surrendered lands in the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA) of 1971. A rural priority in Alaska State law was struck down in 1989 because the Alaska Constitution guarantees equal access to fish and game.

Meanwhile, adding to this seemingly confusing issue is the lawsuit that has been brought by the Legislative Council. This suit challenges the U.S. Congress’s constitutional authority to mandate the rural preference for subsistence use of fish and wildlife and the preemption of state authority over the management of fish and wildlife on federal public lands in the state.

The U.S. Secretary of the Interior, Bruce Babbitt has indicated that he would grant a two-year extension of the current moratorium against the federal fisheries takeover, scheduled for implementation on December 1^st of this year. He would do so only if the Alaska Legislature passed a constitutional amendment, voters approved it and lawmakers returned next year to pass a new subsistence law that complies with federal law.

In essence, this is the recommendation of the Alaska Subsistence Task Force established to study all of the subsistence issues. The consensus reached by this panel of esteemed Alaskan’s proposed bringing our constitution into compliance with ANILCA. This rural subsistence preference will ensure the states management of all lands and waters within its borders. The ANILCA amendments associated with the task force’s package have already passed Congress with the stipulation that the ANILCA amendments would not go into effect until the voters of Alaska approve their own constitutional amendment.

The legislature was close to a compromise in the first special session earlier this year. In that package, before the amendment to the state constitution would take effect, the U.S. Supreme Court must rule on the constitutionality of ANILCA, or all federal appeals must be exhausted. Without final resolution by the highest court in the land, the subsistence issue will never be resolved. I am optimistic that enough legislators can be convinced that this is the right thing to do. It takes a two-thirds majority of the Legislature to propose an amendment for voter approval.

I believe we have to look to the future and what’s best for Alaska. A compromise plan that maintains state management of our subsistence fishery, without compromising our rights as a state, keeps the feds out of our back yard!

Folks in Kodiak, as in all of Alaska deserve a chance to have their say at the polls on a subsistence amendment that legitimately addresses the issues.

When I return from special session, I will give you a very brief version of what took place. I will continue to work with the urban legislators to find a solution that works. I believe it would be a terrible injustice if they fail to bring something before you, the voters.