The Department of Interior, Clinton Administration, Congress, and the Knowles Administration insist on dividing Alaskans on equality and wildlife consumption issues. The real issue before us is one of sovereignty and the federal governments 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.

Does two wrongs make a right? The answer is no.

The McDowell ruling concluded that "statutes granting preference to rural residents to take fish and game for subsistence purposes violates Alaska constitutional provisions prohibiting exclusive or special privileges in the taking of fish and wildlife." Because of that decision the Department of Interior and Congress want the Alaskan people to change their constitution to allow inequality (division by race) in the management and use of Alaska's fish and wildlife resources.

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.