November 2, 2009

Subsistence In Alaska, A Gift From Nature

I often hear the thunderous declaration  of the great Native leader Mark Jacobs, "Subsistence is a right that cannot be taken from you!" What he meant was that subsistence to the Native peoples of Alaska, indeed, is Natural Right.

 I have been compelled, by people who have been asking my opinion, to comment on the citation of Angoon subsistence fishermen for taking too many salmon using a beach seine with four subsistence permits.  Each permit allows for fifteen salmon, which would total 60 fish.  Allegedly, they caught 148 sockeye salmon, which is more than twice the amount of the combined permits. The fishers argued that the arresting officer, a State Trooper, did not have jurisdiction because they were on Admiralty Island, which is a national monument and under federal jurisdiction.  The State, on the other hand, contends that the fishers were harvesting in salt water, which, indeed, falls under State regulations---so the issue would be to determine how to deal with two incompatible regulations. The movement in the Native communities, as we speak, is to change the law so that the federal government will assume jurisdiction over subsistence management in the most of the state.

Let me first say that the U.S. Constitution guarantees us subsistence as a Natural Right. Let's see if we can put this into perspective so that we can understand how this all fits into the scheme of things. To accomplish this we need to examine several important documents so bear with me as I take ideas from them to emphasis key points.  These documents are, of course, the Declaration of Independence, the U.S. and State of Alaska Constitutions, Alaska Native Land Claims Settlement Act (ANSCA) and Alaska Natural Interest and Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA) 

The first paragraph in the Declaration of Independence mentions that we should be entitled to receive the benefits of the Laws of Nature and Nature's God. We should understand from this that the Founding Fathers of this nation mandated that the laws of the country would be based upon the Natural Laws. The second paragraph of the Declaration also says that men are equal in the eyes of the Creator and that we are endowed with certain unalienable rights---that among these are the protection of our lives, our liberties and pursuit of happiness.  Unalienable is an inherent right that is given to us by the Creator founded upon the Laws of Nature. We can interpret this statement by revealing that we have a right to provide for our own well being.  Our basic needs are food shelter, clothing, and to obtain these we need to have a job or means of providing these provisions for our families. In the economic scheme of things, if we wish to participate in a "cash economy,"  it is apparent that one should have an income of some sort to enjoy these necessities---that means a job or ownership of property to operate a business.  

On the other hand there is another means in which we can provide our families with these things---that of living off the land.  This is subsistence of which I dub as a "land based economy."  We live on the land, we survive off the land, and we have traditionally taken care of the land. Our ancestors have learned to abide by the laws of the land---meaning the Natural Laws. Anything that is provided us by the Creator or the Natural Laws are things that cannot be taken from us. This is what Mark Jacobs meant when he said that subsistence is one thing that inherently belongs to us.  Let us remember also that It is through subsistence that America began this magnificent nation. This month we will be celebrating the time when the early settlers survived, with Native American help, their first winter.  Thanksgiving is a time when we, as Americans, can celebrate subsistence in the true sense of the word, and recognize that subsistence has been with us since time immemorial ---therefore no government, or department of government, has the power or authority to take it away from us.

This controversial issue of natural resources in the state is an entitlement which the state constitution guarantees to all people--- meaning that Alaskans will have equal access to the resources in the state. This conflicts with Title VIII of ANILCA , section 804 and is why the State is out of compliance because the constitution says that it cannot discriminate against any special interest or group.

When ANSCA was about to be passed I remember when William Paul, who was one of the principle  movers  and shakers of this bill, said to the Natives that if we accept the bill as Congress had written it at the time "it did not have a provision that subsistence would be protected for Natives peoples."  We would have to accept the fact that we would not be able to enjoy the life style our people have thrived off of since time immemorial.  From what I understand the people ignored his warning because they were pressured into having ANSCA passed so that the oil industry would be able to pursue drilling in the north slop of Alaska.

ANILCA is, of course, now the law of the land when it comes to subsistence issues in Alaska.  In the original document ANILCA mandated that the State of Alaska will manage subsistence resources in the state, however when the state came out of compliance the federal government assumed management and is showing more and more of a presence every day.  Of course, the state has its own regulation on state lands, but it makes the subsistence user confused about which regulations he must obey when he wants to engage in providing food, shelter and clothing for himself and his family. Another thing is that there is always heated debate about rural and non-rural user groups. Many people thought, and still do, that ANILCA is legislation for Natives only.  When congress was debating ANILCA before it was made law in 1980, the discussion was whether to make it a Native piece of legislation. However cautious law-makers did not want to give the impression that they were favoring one user group and inserted the rural preference clause instead.  Well it isn't a Native issue only and because of the fairness idea to make it equitable, rural preference was substituted in the language. ANILCA also recognized that more and more people will be moving into the state and settling in rural areas. When this happens additional pressure will be plunked on the resources, therefore more regulation will be required to keep fish and wildlife stocks  healthy. 

Rural and non-rural issues put aside, the next issue that comes into play is Section 804 of Title VIII.  It provides for a rural preference---meaning that subsistence would be the number one priority on public lands which includs Natives and non-natives.  It doesn't look like the state will come in compliance so we should be content with federal regs for a long time.

Back to Constitution,  both the federal and state constitutions are not discriminative when it comes to using the resources on public lands;equal access are the key words.  We live in a state and within a nation that sanctions public lands and resources belonging to the people.  The constitution says that we all should have free access to the resources.

Let's go back to the Declaration of Independence.  There is a clause in it that tells us how we can change things if we don't like the laws we live under.  It says that when our government(s)  no longer protect our lives, our liberties and pursuit of happiness, then as American we can change or alter the government and start a new one---but the condition is that it must be brought it back to protecting our lives, liberties and our quest for happiness.

You see the Founders provided helpful tools to change things if we feel laws aren't just.  If we think that our lives, liberties and pursuit of happiness has been taken away from us little by little until we can't bear it anymore, then we have to do something about it. If we violate the laws, even if the laws may be unjust, then we should bear the consequences and then use the necessary tools to make changes. 

My advice to the Senator and his collogues is to pay the fine (he has so much as admitted that he probably will anyway) and then be adamant in advocating for changes.  This is pretty much in process through the Alaska Federation of Natives(AFN) and the Alaska Inter Tribal Council(AI-TC).  To change the make-up of the Federal Subsistence Board has already been suggested. Proponents of this idea is to appeal to the Secretary of Interior.  Certain sections of Title VIII of ANILCA will have to be changed/altered, to free the State of Alaska from ANILCA .  This effort will be an upward battle because the state will certainly be advocating for state's rights. 

But I think we need to ask ourselves are we doing the right thing(s) here?  And if we are we doing the right things are we doing it for the right reason(s)?  If we can answer the affirmative to these questions then we should pursue these issues based upon correct principles.  When we can feel right about aligning ourselves with correct principles then we can be assured that we are in compliance with the Natural Laws.