February 24, 1999

Richard W. Coleman
P.O. Box 72810
Fairbanks, AK 99707

Dear Richard:

Thank you for taking the time to write to me about subsistence and federal intrusion.

I have introduced House Concurrent Resolution 2 as a companion bill to Senator Taylor's SCR 3 because the recent debate over subsistence has become one fueled with a lot of emotion. I believe the debate must focus on the doctrines of law.

The Clinton Administration continues to try to divide Alaskans on equality and wildlife consumption issues. The real issue before us in one of sovereignty and the federal government's continued denial of sovereignty, equal footing and public trust.

ANILCA did not preempt nor diminish the State of Alaska's sovereign authorities over its own lands, water and resources. ANILCA did not specifically preempt state management nor grant specific authority to the secretaries of Agriculture and Interior to preempt state management of navigable waters, submerged lands, nor the resources therein.

Putting an equal protection to a vote on the ballot would set a precedence of allowing fundamental rights to become vulnerable to politics and rhetoric. If the legislature passed a referendum for the ballot and the voters of Alaska approved a rural preference, it would be swiftly met with legal challenges because such a change to our Constitution would be unconstitutional under Article XIV of the U.S. Constitution.

HCR 2 restates the historical events that gave the State of Alaska the responsibility for the management of Alaska's fish and wildlife resources. It also challenges the Department of Interior to agree to allow the United States Supreme Court to decide who will manage Alaska's resources.

I also introduced HCR 1 as a companion bill to Senator Taylor's SCR 2. These resolves asked the governor to implement intensive game for human consumption purposes. The State of Alaska must implement programs to manage Alaska's wildlife resources on a biological basis for abundance. The problem is a shortage of wildlife, which will not be solved by determining who may have a preference regarding harvest. Our state constitution is very explicit on this issue in Article VIII, Section 3 "Where occurring in their natural state, fish, wildlife, and waters are reserved to the people for common use."

Our constitution mandates that our fish and game resources be managed intensively on the sustained yield principle. The Knowles administration has failed to implement an intensive management program that will ensure that there is an abundance of wildlife. Attempting to manage complex wildlife populations by only addressing human use will not work.

An emphasis should be placed on predator control. Instead of funding wolf control, our governor funds delicing programs for the wolves. According to Alaska Department of Fish and Game's own data, 87% of annual wildlife harvests are killed by predators. Only 10% die of natural reasons. Alaskans currently harvest less than 3% of the harvestable surplus, an amount so small, that it is statistically not significant to wildlife populations.

An abundance of fish and wildlife for all Alaskans is the only practical solution to the subsistence impasse. The present policies of the Board of Fish & Game only perpetuates the shortage by not implementing programs nor requesting funding for programs that will reduce the shortage and lead to an abundance of wildlife. Abundance of wildlife is what that people of Alaska need, want, and demand.

Plentiful wildlife populations in Alaska are good for the state and all users. Intensive fish and game management will ensure that there are higher harvestable yields of Alaska's fish and game resources. It will ensure to Alaskans who do purchase hunting, fishing and trapping licenses that there will be fish and game resources available to them to harvest.

Hopefully you and others of like mind will stay active in following the legislative process. Feel free to contact me anytime.

Sincerely,

Representative John Coghill