OP-ED ARTICLE

January 29, 1998

Representative Ivan M. Ivan

EVER SINCE THE MCDOWELL DECISION BY THE ALASKA SUPREME COURT, OUR LEGAL SUBSISTENCE EXISTENCE HAS BEEN IN LIMBO. THE STATE’S ADMINISTRATIONS AND LEGISLATURES HAVE STRUGGLED TO FIND A REMEDY THAT WOULD SATISFY THE STATE’S RESIDENTS. TODAY, WE ARE NOT ANY CLOSER TO RESOLVING THE ISSUE OF SUBSISTENCE THAN THOSE WHO MADE ATTEMPTS IN THE PAST.

DURING THIS PAST SUMMER, THE GOVERNOR, SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE, THE SENATE PRESIDENT AND SELECTED OTHERS ADOPTED A PLAN THAT INCLUDED AMENDMENTS TO ANILCA, A RURAL PREFERENCE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT AND STATE STATUTORY CHANGES. ANOTHER ACTION RECENTLY TAKEN IN REGARDS TO SUBSISTENCE WAS THE LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL’S FILING OF A LAWSUIT CHALLENGING THE ACTIONS OF INTERIOR SECRETARY BRUCE BABBITT AND OTHER FEDERAL OFFICIALS IN IMPOSING A FEDERAL FISH AND WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT PROGRAM ON THE STATE. THE HOUSE MAJORITY HAS MET SEVERAL TIMES SINCE THE START OF THE SESSION IN AN EFFORT TO FIND COMMON GROUND. THESE DISCUSSIONS ARE CONTINUING ALTHOUGH AGREEMENTS HAVE NOT BEEN REACHED YET.

I AM VERY MINDFUL OF THE POSITION OF THE VILLAGES IN DISTRICT 39 AND I WILL NOT COMPROMISE ON THE ISSUE OF SUBSISTENCE. I AM NOT IN SUPPORT OF THE TASK FORCE PLAN PRESENTED BY THE GOVERNOR’S WORKING GROUP NOR AM I SUPPORTIVE OF THE LAWSUIT FILED BY THE LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL. IT IS MY BELIEF THAT IT IS NOT RURAL ALASKA THAT HAS A PROBLEM IN REGARDS TO SUBSISTENCE BUT THE PROBLEM LIES WITH THE REST OF THE STATE AND ALSO STATE GOVERNMENT. AS RURAL ALASKANS, WE SHARE A COMMON INTEREST TO PROVIDE FOR OUR FAMILIES AND OUR COMMUNITIES. I BELIEVE THAT THIS PRIORITY SHOULD NOT BE CHANGED.

ONE OF THE BIGGEST COMPLAINTS I HAVE HEARD ABOUT THE GOVERNOR’S TASK FORCE WAS THE LACK OF PUBLIC INPUT. THE LEGISLATURE CAN TAKE THE LEAD BY ALLOWING THE PUBLIC TO TAKE PART IN THE DEBATE BY BRINGING SPOKESPERSONS WHO ARE ON THE DIFFERING SIDES TO THE TABLE TO PRESENT THEIR VIEWS.

THIS PAST SUMMER THE NATIVE COMMUNITIES HELD A SUBSISTENCE SUMMIT. SIMILARLY, OTHER GROUPS SUCH AS THE ALASKA OUTDOOR COUNCIL AND SUBSISTENCE WORKING GROUPS HAVE MET. EACH HAVE ADOPTED POSITIONS ON SUBSISTENCE. IF THE LEGISLATURE IS GOING TO CONTINUE ITS EFFORTS TO REACH AGREEMENT ON THE SUBSISTENCE ISSUE, THE PUBLIC NEEDS TO BE INVOLVED IN THE PROCESS. THOSE WHO HAVE ALREADY ESTABLISHED POSITIONS, BOTH PRO AND CON, SHOULD BE BROUGHT TOGETHER AND SIT AT THE TABLE SO THAT EACH SIDE IN THE DEBATE CAN AT LEAST HEAR THE ARGUMENTS FOR OR AGAINST A RURAL PRIORITY. I AM NOT SAYING THAT A RESOLUTION WILL BE REACHED. BUT I DO BELIEVE THE DIFFERING PARTIES WILL COME AWAY WITH A BETTER UNDERSTANDING OF THE ISSUES WHICH ARE SEPARATING THOSE OF US WHO LIVE A SUBSISTENCE LIFESTYLE VERSUS THOSE WHO MAY EAT FISH AND GAME, BUT DO NOT SOLELY RELY ON THESE RESOURCES FOR THEIR EXISTENCE.