MANAGING ALASKA'S SUBSISTENCE PROGRAM, 1985-1989 (continued)
Notes Chapter 6
2 "Madison vs. Alaska Dept. of Fish and Game," in Pacific Reporter, 2nd Series, vol. 696 (St. Paul, West Publishing, 1985), 168-72; Anchorage Times, February 23, 1985, A1, A12; Southeastern Log, October 1985, B3; L. J. Campbell, "Subsistence: Alaska's Dilemma," Alaska Geographic 17:4 (1990), 83.
3 Alaska House Bill History, 1985-86, for HB 288; Anchorage Times, February 28, 1985, B-1; Juneau Empire, March 29, 1985, 3. Sheffield submitted an identical bill (SB 231) for the Senate's consideration, which never got beyond the committee stage.
6 F&WS, 806 Report, 1985, 1-2. On August 29, 1986, the Alaska Supreme Court reversed the Appeals Court's decision in the Eluska case, as noted in the Pacific Reporter, 2nd Series, vol. 724 (1986), pp. 514-19. But by that time, the Alaska legislature, as mentioned below, had passed a revised subsistence law.
7 Alaska House Bill History, 1985-86 for HB 288 and S 320; Juneau Empire, April 8, 1985, 3. Abood felt that "there's no reason why a guy from Spenard can't qualify as a subsistence user." Juneau Empire, June 17, 1985, 3; June 20, 1985, 2.
9 Southeastern Log, October 1985, B-4; November 1985, B-14. Most of the 54 Tier II hunts in 1985 were located near Alaska's large population centers; only ten were held in areas away from the road and marine-highway network. Almost half of the Tier II hunts were for moose, while the remainder were for Dall sheep, mountain goat, caribou, and bison. USF&WS, 806 Report, 1985, 3-4. A map of where the Tier II hunts were held is found in Lou Waller to Alaska Region Superintendents, January 31, 1986, 14, in "State Subsistence Management Activity, 1981-1986" folder, AKSO-RS.
10 Gale A. Norton (Office of the DOI Solicitor) to Harold M. Brown (Alaska Attorney General), April 4, 1986, in "1986 Federal Assumption Project" folder, AKSO-RS. As an explanation of the June 1 deadline, Horn noted that "we are persuaded that the spirit and intent of section 805(d) warrants a grace period in order to provide the State with a reasonable opportunity to make the necessary adjustments to its program. We have chosen as a deadline June 1, 1986, because it is roughly one year from the time the State legislature failed to rectify the State subsistence statute." William P. Horn to Honorable William Sheffield, September 23, 1985, in 806 Report, 1985, 19.
13 Session Laws of Alaska, 1986, Chapter 52, Secs. 6, 9, 10, 11; Alaska Statutes 16.05.940(23) and 16.05.940(32); Harold M. Brown to Elizabeth A. Stewart, September 12, 1986, in 806 Report, 1986, 41-42.
16 Coghill's amendment stated that "... the taking of fish by residents for personal or family consumption by hook and line, or by dipnet where currently established, shall have a reasonable preference over other consumptive uses of the resource." Alaska Senate Journal, 1986, 2718.
18 Anchorage Times, May 10, 1986, A-1; Juneau Empire, May 12, 1986, 1, 16; Alaska House Bill History, 1985-86 for HB 288. The final bill was called SCS CSHB 288(Res) am(S): that is, the Senate Committee Substitute of the Committee Substitute for House Bill 288, Resources Committee, as amended by the Senate.
19 Juneau Empire, May 12, 1986, 1; Chapter 52, Session Laws of Alaska, 1986; Terry Haynes to author, email, May 24, 2002. The rural definition was added to Alaska Statutes 16.05.940. In September 1986, Governor Sheffield forwarded the text of the newly-passed subsistence law to Assistant Interior Secretary William Horn. Two months later, Horn certified the new law's legitimacy. He stated that "the new legislation cures the problems arising from the Madison decision. ... I am therefore pleased to inform you that we have determined that the State's subsistence program is once again in full compliance with sections 803, 804 and 805 of ANILCA." William P. Horn to Bill Sheffield, November 7, 1986, in "ADF&G thru FY 92" file, AKSO-RS.
20 F&WS, 806 Report, 1986, pp. 1-2; Robert E. Gilmore to Donald R. Horrell, July 17, 1986, in "State Subsistence Management Activity, 1981-1986" folder, AKSO-RS. Gilmore noted that during the spring 1986 meeting, the game board "limited the number of rural/non-rural determinations to those communities or areas affected by hunting proposals (such as Nelchina caribou) under immediate consideration."
21 F&WS, 806 Report for 1986 (p. 2) and 1988 (p. 3). In its May-June 1986 meeting, the game board designated Glennallen as non-rural, but the Tok Cutoff-Nabesna Road Advisory Committee protested the action, and on August 6 the board reversed its earlier decision. In March 1987, the joint board ruled that the 84-mile Parks Highway corridor between Cantwell and Nenana was non-rural; but a year later, prodded by local advisory committees, it reversed its decision in this case as well. The joint board also considered changing the status of Seldovia and Valdez, both of which had been ruled as non-rural in June 1986. In March 1988, the board decided to change Seldovia from non-rural to rural, but it refused to make a similar ruling regarding Valdez. Bill Ellis to Bill Sheffield, July 25, 1986, in "ADF&G Regional Council thru FY 86" folder, AKSO-RS; DENA SRC minutes, June 5, 1987, in AKSO-RS files; NPS News Release, August 7, 1986, in "WRST thru FY 87" file, AKSO-RS.
22 F&WS, 806 Report, 1989, pp. 3, 5-6. In its May-June 1986 meeting, the game board ruled that the "entire Kenai Peninsula road-connected area" was non-rural. In July, various Kenai-area Natives responded by filing a suit, Kenaitze Indian Tribe vs. Alaska, in which they challenged the State's definition of "rural area" as being inconsistent with the meaning of "rural" as stated in Section 803 of ANILCA. In July 1987 the District Court ruled in the State's favor, but in April 1989 a Court of Appeals judge gave the plaintiffs priority use over the Kenai Peninsula's "hooligan" [eulachon] and salmon resources. The state board, however, did not respond to the judge's ruling and thus continued to classify the road-connected portion of the Kenai Peninsula as non-rural.
23 Morehouse and Holleman, When Values Conflict, p. 15. A map delineating rural versus non-rural areas was included in an ADF&G Division of Subsistence publication, "How Alaska's Subsistence Law Affected Hunting Regulations," March 1990, p. 4.
24 As noted earlier, the three-tiered system operated as follows: When game was plentiful, no restrictions were necessary. In cases of mild shortages, Tier I hunts were authorized; here opportunities by rural subsistence were unaffected, while opportunities by all other users were curtailed or eliminated. And in cases of severe game shortages, Tier II hunts would rationalize game resources among qualified subsistence users according to the three criteria listed in the revised subsistence law. Those criteria were "customary and direct dependence on the fish stock or game population as the mainstay of livelihood," "local residency," and "availability of alternative resources." Morehouse and Holleman, When Values Conflict, 15; Session Laws and Resolves of Alaska, 1986, Chapter 52, Section 6.
25 James A. Fall to author, email, July 21, 2000. The federal government's Final EIS (FSB, Subsistence Management for Federal Public Lands in Alaska, Final EIS, Vol. I (Anchorage, F&WS, February 1992, p. II-17) notes that "In 1989, the State made customary and traditional use determinations for most large wildlife resources for most of the state."
31 ADF&G Subsistence Specialist Terry Haynes, in a March 12, 2001 email to the author, defended the state's role. He stated that "If the federal government reduced or limited the ANILCA reimbursement levels to the state because of our track record in operating the regional councils, to my knowledge this was never brought to our attention. Perhaps federal officials who advised the congressional budget committees made such arguments, but I don't recall ever hearing such an explanation. I do know that [ADF&G] never hid the manner in which the funding was used; indeed, the fact that much of the funding was applied to subsistence data collection was a response to the need for such information to facilitate implementation of Title VIII and support the public advisory participation in subsistence management."
32 Between 1983 and 1988, the following regional councils submitted annual reports: Arctic, none; Interior, 1983 and 1984; Southcentral, none; Southeastern, 1983, 1985, 1986, 1988; Southwestern, none; Western, none.
33 F&WS, Section 806 Subsistence Monitoring Report for 1985 (pp. 7-10), 1986 (pp. 7-10), and 1988, (pp. 6-8); and various entries in the "ADF&G Regional Councils thru FY86" and "ADF&G Regional Councils, FY 87-90" folders, AKSO-RS.
36 See, for example, Ron Jolin to Dan Calhoun, April 22, 1985, in "ADF&G Regional Councils thru FY 86" folder, and Karen Brandt to Regional Council Members, December 30, 1986,in "ADF&G Regional Councils, FY 87-90" folder, both AKSO-RS.
37 Walt Stieglitz, "Federal Agency Guidelines for Receiving and Responding to Regional Advisory Council Annual Reports;" in draft, August 26, 1988 (in "ADF&G Regional Councils, FY 87-90" folder) and in final, November 30, 1988 (in 1989 806 Report, Section E).
39 The difficulties with the state's advisory system (as expressed by a non-Native) are encapsulated in a letter by the Southcentral Regional Council chairman to Governor Steve Cowper on September 7, 1989, in "ADF&G Regional Councils, FY 87-90" folder, AKSO-RS.
40 Morehouse and Holleman, When Values Conflict, 15-16. As Taylor Brelsford noted in a January 18, 2002 letter to the author, RuralCAP (Rural Alaska Community Action Program, Inc.) played a major role in spotlighting rural residents' frustration with the state-managed regional council system.
41 Morehouse and Holleman, When Values Conflict, 13; Terry Haynes (ADF&G) interview, April 7, 1999; James A. Fall, "The Division of Subsistence of the Alaska Department of Fish and Game: An Overview of its Research Program and Findings, 1980-1990," Arctic Anthropology 27 (1990), 70.
42 Boyd Evison email, April 12, 2001. Of particular assistance to Waller during this period was G. Ray Bane, a management assistant who worked at both the Gates of the Arctic and Northwest Areas offices. C. Mack Shaver (at NWAK) and James Pepper (at GAAR) also contributed to the formulation of NPS subsistence policies.
45 At Lake Clark, an NPS official stated that "there is very little actual subsistence hunting within the park itself, most of the hunting is done around in the preserve," while at Denali, the SRC chair noted that "we are lucky, at Denali, to have very very few people in the area who use the park for subsistence." DENA/LACL SRC minutes, May 10-11, 1984, 6; Florence R. Collins to Walter [Sampson], April 20, 1987, in DENA SRC file.
46 CAKR SRC minutes, November 29, 1984, 7; February 1, 1985, 1. Later, CAKR's SRC raised the quorum to five. The SRC for WRST, and KOVA (and perhaps other parks as well) also decided that five members constituted a quorum. Walter Sampson to Robert Newlin, Noorvik, February 15, 1985, in KOVA SRC file; WRST SRC minutes, May 16, 1984, 5.
47 WRST SRC minutes, November 1, 1984, 2; CAKR SRC minutes, February 1, 1985, 1; January 29, 1986, 1. The August 1-2, 1985 meeting of the WRST SRC featured three proxy votes, but as the minutes noted, "The proxy vote system is not the proper way to conduct business. All members of the Commission should be serving."
48 GAAR SRC Resolution 86-12, March 26, 1986; C. Mack Shaver to Frank Stein, November 1986, in CAKR SRC file. Shaver stated that the change had been "proposed by Lou Waller of our Regional Office...". As a result of the SRC's action, Alaska's seven SRC chartersall of which were renewed by the Interior Secretary on November 19, 1986contained an extension provision. That provision became part of federal law in October 1992, when Public Law 102-525 was signed by President Bush. That law, which provided for "the establishment of the Brown v. Board of Education National Historic Site in the State of Kansas, and for other purposes," contained Section 301(b) which read, "In the case of any advisory commission or advisory committee established in connection with any national park system unit, any member of such Commission or Committee may serve after the expiration of his or her term until a successor is appointed."
49 At the initial Cape Krusenstern SRC meeting, for example, an NPS official noted that "the information the commission develops for a subsistence hunting program will be used in the general management plan." CAKR SRC minutes, May 4, 1984, 2-3.
50 The park's SRC was unable to provide input into the final GMP. That document's subsistence section was distressingly brief, although references to subsistence were sprinkled elsewhere in the volume. NPS, Lake Clark National Park and Preserve General Management Plan and Environmental Assessment (Anchorage, the author, August 1984), 4, 8-9, 17-18, 32-33, 87.
52 Denali was the first SRC to pass hunting plan resolutions; its first two were in June and July 1984, respectively. The Gates of the Arctic SRC, at its May 1984 meeting, hoped to submit its initial recommendations by July 1984, but it did not do so until March 1985. Other SRCs that submitted proposals in 1985 included those representing Aniakchak, Lake Clark, and Wrangell-St. Elias.
55 NPS, Cape Krusenstern National Monument General Management Plan, Land Protection Plan, and Wilderness Suitability Review (Denver, NPS, December 1986), viii; NPS, Denali National Park and Preserve GMP (Denver, NPS, December 1986), vi, 44.
56 Benjamin P. Nageak to George N. Ahmaogak, December 19, 1984, 3-4; GAAR SRC Resolution 86-08, January 31, 1986; both in GAAR SRC file. In 1985, the Gates of the Arctic SRC passed seven hunting plan resolutions, and at its January 1986 it passed eight additional resolutions. Based on those actions, Resolution 86-08 stated that "reference to a separate plan by the National Park Service be deleted in the General Management Plan" because it "appears to duplicate the hunting program the Subsistence Resource Commission is currently developing."
58 The Cape Krusenstern and Kobuk Valley SRCs, at a joint meeting, had passed a single (and identical) resolution in January 1986, but the resolution was not sent to the Interior Secretary until years later, well after the federal government had begun to assume subsistence hunting management on federal lands. Cape Krusenstern SRC chair Frank Stein, asked by other SRC chairs in November 1988 why the resolution had not yet been forwarded to the Interior Secretary, replied that "we're waiting for their mistakes." CAKR SRC minutes, June 22, 1989, 1. See page 129.
59 The Denali and Gates of the Arctic SRCs originally passed six and twenty-four recommendations, respectively, but negotiations between SRC members and NPS staff regarding appropriate themes for hunting plan recommendations resulted in fewer recommendations being submitted to the Interior Secretary.
60 Because few Washington-based DOI or NPS officials had much subsistence expertise, Alaska NPS officials found it difficult to either move, or obtain comments on, the various SRC recommendations. Lou Waller interview, July 25, 2000.
61 Although William Horn remained as the Interior Department's Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks until July 1, 1988, he had let it be known several months earlier that he was interested in leaving his position in order to work for the Washington, D.C. office of an Alaska law firm. Because of the probable conflicts of interest involved, Horn recused himself from an active involvement on Alaska-based issues during his last several months of federal service. Anchorage Daily News, December 2, 1988, C4; December 2, 1990, B1.
62 Aniakchak SRC recommendation 85-01(4), March 12, 1986, in ANIA SRC file; W. T. Ellis to "Dear Reviewer," August 15, 1985, in WRST SRC file. As noted in an October 1987 memo, Slana was a worrisome issue because a 1983 land withdrawal had engendered the "new community" of New Slana, which during the intervening period had grown to "over 200 persons, living directly along the northern boundary of the preserve ... this is a significant threat to park resources." Lou Waller to Paul Haertel, October 16, 1987, in WRST SRC file.
70 Frank Stein to Bill Sheffield, April 28, 1986; CAKR/KOVA SRC minutes, June 6, 1986, 1. Lou Waller (interview, July 25, 2000) notes that Bane helped write the resolution and even readied it for mailing.
72 NPS, Denali National Park and Preserve, Draft Subsistence Management Plan, February 6, 1999, 2:43; Hollis Twitchell to author, email, June 9, 2000. Twitchell noted that park officials imposed the boundary "without any public input because they were scared to death that the population of Cantwell was going to explode."
87 Collinsworth to Boyd Evison, October 28, 1988; Collinsworth to Stan Leaphart, February 28, 1989; both in Terry Haynes (ADF&G) files. Collinsworth complained that the proposed regulation would cause "situations where Alaskan citizens that fully qualify for subsistence privileges under state laws and policies will not qualify as a bona fide subsistence user within the National Parks." Therefore, "these proposals may result in a declining use of parklands for subsistence purposes in the future, as the effect of the 'roster' concept has the potential to limit and reduce eligibility over time. We do not believe this is in keeping with the spirit and intent of ANILCA."
88 "First Meeting, Denali SRC Committee Meeting, July 7, 1988;" Steve Cowper to Manuel Lujan, Jr., August 2, 1989; Subsistence Division to [NPS] Regional Director, Alaska, August 11, 1989; all in DENA SRC file.
98 DENA SRC, "Proposed Recommendation Regarding Resident Zones," June 12, 1984. Denali was not the only SRC to address the needs of post-ANILCA in-migrants. The Cape Krusenstern and Kobuk Valley SRCs, for example, passed a draft resolution in January 1986 stating that "persons not qualifying under the provisions of [the December 1980 residency date] may petition the appropriate Subsistence Resource Commission for such privileges." Two months later, the Gates of the Arctic SRC voted to recommend a procedure (Resolution 86-16) whereby recent residents might gain subsistence access to the park. And three months after that, the same body recommended that a twelve-month residency requirement be imposed before residents could begin harvesting subsistence resources. The state, however, objected to the residency requirement, and the Interior Department, in a March 1988 letter, rejected such a requirement in favor of either an individual or community-based subsistence permit system.
99 Bill Sheffield to Orville E. Lind [etc.], May 5, 1986; Don Collinsworth to Lind, September 16, 1986; both in ANIA SRC file. Sheffield sent a similar letter (on May 2, 1986) to the Lake Clark SRC chair, Glen Alsworth.
101 The approval of the Gates of the Arctic recommendation had appeared in the park and preserve's General Management Plan (p. 123), which had been released in December 1986, while the approval of Lake Clark's resolution was included in the department's April 22, 1988 response to the SRC's hunting plan recommendation. The Interior Department did not respond to the Aniakchak or Cape Krusenstern-Kobuk Valley recommendations inasmuch as they were never formalized.
102 Susan Reece to Florence Collins, April 22, 1988, in DENA SRC file. The Interior Department's acceptance of the 1986 cutoff date appears to have been a compromise between the position of the NPS, which preferred a 1980 cutoff date, and that of the State of Alaska, which felt that "it might not be valid to make eligibility retroactive." NPS, "Initial Comments," c. June 1986, DENA SRC file; DENA SRC minutes, June 5, 1987, 2. This tension remained long after the Interior Department issued its letter; in August 1989, for example, Governor Cowper urged the Interior Department to abandon any proposed rulemaking that might preclude all qualified residents from hunting in parks, and two years later, a Sierra Club representative warned that "1986 can not be legally used" as a cutoff date and that December 1980 should be substituted instead. Steve Cowper to Manuel Lujan, Jr., August 2, 1989; Jack Hession to Boyd Evison, October 30, 1989; both in DENA SRC files.
103 Congressional Record, November 12, 1980, H 10541. Similar language appeared in Senate Report 96-413, 169. Also see Federal Register, June 17, 1981, 31851-52, 31861, 31863-64. Native leader Byron Mallott, who hailed from Yakutat, insisted upon the Malaspina Forelands exception because the area's harsh, unpredictable weather often made water access unsafe.
104 According to the June 17, 1981 Federal Register (p. 31841), "residents of Glennallen, Slana, and Tok submitted several comments [in response to the issuance of proposed subsistence regulations] that argued for allowance of aircraft as 'the most feasible and ecologically sound access means in many cases," but perhaps because other respondents had opposed aircraft for any subsistence uses, the proposed regulations were not changed. But here, as elsewhere in the state, the regulations were not immediately enforced. Local subsistence user Fred T. Williams, in a letter to Senator Frank Murkowski (August 13, 1985, in "WRST thru FY 87" file, AKSO-RS), noted that "The first couple of years [after ANILCA's passage] went along fine. Local residents were able to fly into the Park and hunt caribou, sheep and moose."
106 Regional Director NPS to Alaska Superintendents, July 2, 1985; William P. Horn to Sue Entsminger, August 14, 1985; both in WRST SRC file. Those who were "otherwise permitted via exception" included certain residents of Anaktuvuk Pass and Yakutat, for reasons explained above.
107 Ellis was a longtime area hunting guide who had lost much of his guiding area when Wrangell-St. Elias National Park had been established, so his opposition to Contor's interpretation had personal as well as political implications.
109 The "previous and incorrect interpretation," of course, was Budge's February 1984 letter. Horn further noted that "the July 2 memorandum does not constitute a restriction or closure, in the sense that no change in the Code of Federal Regulations was made." Thus no public hearings or comment period was necessary. Horn to Bill Ellis, October 29, 1985, in WRST SRC files.
111 Stanley T. Albright to Frank Murkowski, May 6, 1987, in "WRST thru FY 87" file, AKSO-RS; Horn to Ellis, October 29, 1985, in WRST SRC file. The NPS also held an open house in Fairbanks on the same subject.
113 Regional Director, Alaska Region to [various Alaska NPS] Superintendents, July 2, 1985; W. T. Ellis to Regional Director NPS, October 4, 1985; Bockmon to Regional Director NPS, April 2, 1986; all in WRST SRC file. Although Bockmon's decision was the Interior Department's final word on the subject, the park's SRC in August 1986 nevertheless decided to submit its non-emergency recommendation regarding aircraft access to the Interior Secretary. The department, in May 1988, rejected the recommendation and cited "the 1985 memorandum from the NPS Alaska Regional Director" as a principal clarifying document. The SRC, unbowed by this action, recommended in late 1989 that the Interior Secretary "list each of the park's resident zones as 'exempt communities' in order to continue traditional access via aircraft for subsistence activities," and it also recommended that the Interior Secretary "rescind the 1985 policy which bans eligible residents from subsistence activities if access to adjacent state, private, or preserve lands involves aircraft." The SRC, however, never forwarded these recommendations to Washington.
Richard Martin, who served as Wrangell-St. Elias's superintendent throughout this period, noted in a recent letter that a major effort during his tenure was "educating subsistence-eligible folks on the principle of surface transportation for subsistence activities. ... It took significant fortitude to reasonably communicate that message. I believe, ultimately, understanding and acceptance was achieved." Bill Ellis to "Dear Interested Citizen," December 29, 1989, in WRST SRC file; Martin to Betty Knight, August 30, 2001, in Admin History Correspondence File.
118 See, for example, Tracks in the Wildland; a Portrayal of Koyukon and Nunamiut Subsistence by Richard K. Nelson, Kathleen H. Mautner, and G. Ray Bane (Fairbanks, University of Alaska, 1982), pp. 90-107 and pp. 116-23. Although this study was published in the early 1980s, it was modified only slightly (and not updated) from a similar study, Kuuvangmiit, which was printed in January 1976.
121 President Nixon issued E.O. 11644 on February 8, 1972; on May 24, 1977, President Carter issued E.O. 11989, which amended that order. Both actions were published in the Federal Register a day after they were issued.
122 LACL/DENA SRC minutes, May 10-11, 1984, 7. The unnamed NPS official may have been describing Cantwella town bordering Denali National Parkas the area where ATVs had been "around for quite awhile." As noted in Chapter 8, Cantwell-area residents during the early 1990s noted that ATV use on the south side of the Alaska Range had commenced between 1940 and 1950.
127 NPS, Aniakchak GMP, 33, 173; Denali GMP, 45, 195; Gates of the Arctic GMP, 123-24, 289; Evison email, April 17, 2001. The nontraditional nature of ATV use in Anaktuvuk Pass, located within Gates of the Arctic NP, was explained in a January 28, 1986 memo from the Acting Associate Regional Director, Operations to the park superintendent. See "Initial comments, GAAR Recommended Subsistence Hunting Program," January 8, 1987, in GAAR SRC file. This determination was a key rationale for a three-way land trade that was hammered out in 1986 and 1987; see description below.
129 NPS, Cape Krusenstern GMP, ix, 90-91; Lake Clark GMP, 17, 33; Richard Stenmark to Judith Gottlieb, December 8, 2001. In September 1984, a month after Lake Clark's GMP was released, superintendent Paul Haertel told the park's SRC members that "the subject of off road vehicles is something that we haven't addressed yet in our management and it is something that we need to." LACL SRC minutes, September 29, 1984, 3.
131 A possible exception to this rule was a resolution from the Denali SRC; this resolution sought to ensure that "in those areas and routes open to subsistence surface transportation, only those means traditionally used in those specific areas and routes could continue to be used." DENA SRC, "Proposed Recommendation Regarding Surface Access," July 13, 1984, in DENA SRC files.
133 WRST SRC minutes, November 1-2, 1984, 3. The minutes of the April 7-8, 1986 meetings bear the following overprinted message; "Millie [Buck] and Walter [Charley, both SRC members] cautioned that many local people use ORV's currently & would not want to cut them out!"
134 The first ATV, according to anthropologist Edwin Hall, had arrived there in 1961, three years before the arrival of the first snowmobile. Edwin S. Hall to James A. Schwarber, February 6, 1986, in GAAR SRC file. But the 1991 draft legislative EIS (see below, p. 4) noted that "ATVs were first introduced to the area by the U.S. Geological Survey in the late 1950s.... ATVs were used in the village in the early 1960s, but [Michael] Kunz [in a 1989 study] notes that the first Native-owned ATVa Cootwas acquired in 1969." See Edwin S. Hall, Jr., Craig Gerlach, and Margaret B. Blackman, In the National Interest: A Geographically Based Study of Anaktuvuk Pass Inupiat Subsistence Through Time, 2 vols. (Barrow, North Slope Borough), 1985.
137 Stan Leaphart (Citizens' Advisory Commission on Federal Areas) to Jim Schwarber, January 23, 1985; Randy R. Rogers (Northern Alaska Environmental Center) to Schwarber, June 11, 1985; SRC minutes, January 29-31, 1986, 5; SRC minutes, June 17-19, 1986, 2; SRC Resolution 86-05, January 31, 1986; all in GAAR SRC file. The ATV study, written by Michael Kunz and Keith Troxel, was entitled The Anaktuvuk Pass All-Terrain Vehicle Study, 1986-1988; a Narrative Report of Field Operations and Dispersed ATV Use (Anchorage, NPS), 1989.
140 Gates of the Arctic, it may be recalled, had been the subject of a proposed, ad hoc traditional use zone back in the original (January 1977) version of HR 39, and the legislative history for both the House and Senate bill provided a rationale for this concept. Page 147 of Senate Report 96-413, for example, noted that "subsistence uses of some areas of the park may be essential periodically or continuously for the continued survival of the local people." Similarly, the Senate Committee felt "that the subsistence patterns of the park are well known and can be identified." The report listed fourteen drainages within the park that "have apparently been used for subsistence hunting." It further noted that "It is not the intent of the committee that these drainage be considered the only places where subsistence can occur. But it is the Committee's intent to restrict subsistence hunting in the park to traditional use areas." Also see Congressional Record, November 12, 1980, H 10535, and Federal Register 46 (June 17, 1981), 31848.
141 LACL SRC minutes, September 29, 1984, 4; Federal Register, June 17, 1981, 31848-49. Both the Senate and House records supported this conclusion; page 147 of Senate Report 96-413, for example, stated that "a park subsistence resource commission established by this Act will help further determine or modify these areas," and Rep. Morris Udall (in the Congressional Record, November 12, 1980, p. 10547) said that "fundamental fairness seems to require that the designation and boundaries of those zones be made by the subsistence resource commissions established by section 808, rather than by park planners and researchers."
144 During this period, as noted above, the community of Anaktuvuk Pass was in the midst of discussions of a possible land trade as well as the traditional use zone idea. So in order to gauge local opinion on these issues, Regional Director Roger Contor visited the community and discussed these and other NPS-related issues. During an April 11, 2001 interview, Contor recalled that one elderly Inupiat resident, during a community meeting, took him aside and (using a translator) suggested that certain named valleys near the community should be closed to snowmachines. Contor asked the gentleman if he could present that opinion to the larger group; having received that permission, he received a broad degree of approval from all those present. But when he related those discussions at a Fairbanks meeting of Doyon, Ltd. officials a few months later, he was severely criticized for attempting to limit local residents' options. That criticism, moreover, dogged Contor for months afterward.
145 Supt. GAAR to Regional Director, ARO, May 31, 1984; "Public Notice, Extension of Request for Information," ca. January 1985; William P. Horn to Rep. Don Young, April 18, 1985; NPS, "Draft Briefing Statement for GAAR SRC Draft Hunting Plan Recommendation 9," July 21, 1994, 3, all in GAAR SRC file; Jim Kowalsky, "Subsistence Board Protests Park Service Hunting Zones," The Council (TCC newsletter), February 1985;.
147 Stan Leaphart (CACFA) to Jim Schwarber, January 23, 1985, in GAAR SRC file. (Udall's statement comes from the Congressional Record, November 12, 1980, H 10547.) A follow-up statement on the subject (Leaphart to Richard Ring, March 4, 1985, in GAAR SRC file), noted with some irony that "subsistence areas that overlap the most popular visitor areas have been left off the map altogether or off of summer subsistence zones. This interpretation ... makes it seem like a deliberate attempt to avoid subsistence/visitor conflicts." He then listed four popular recreational areas and linked each to various community subsistence areas.
150 GAAR SRC Resolution 85-01, January 24, 1985. Two months later, the ADF&G commissioner made a similar argument in a letter to the NPS. Don Collinsworth to Roger Contor, March 14, 1985, in GAAR SRC file.
152 Roger J. Contor to James A. Schwarber, February 26, 1985, in GAAR SRC file. Judy Alderson (interview with author, June 27, 2000), who worked at the park during this period, noted that park staff "backed down" on the issue shortly after the January 1985 SRC meeting.
153 NPS, "Public Notice, Information Requested," May 6, 1985, in GAAR SRC file. Boyd Evison, in an April 17, 2001 email, noted that the issue, and Supt. Ring's position on it, had put him "at serious odds with people at Anaktuvuk Pass;" by the summer of 1985, a widely-circulated petition demanding Ring's ouster had been presented to Sen. Ted Stevens.
154 GAAR SRC Resolutions 86-04 and 86-06, January 31, 1986; GAAR SRC minutes, January 29-31, 1986, 22-23. Resolution 86-06 asked that the word "will" in the following two sentences (which appeared in the recently-released revised draft version of the park's GMP) be changed to "may;" "The Subsistence Resource Commission will address the issue of designation of traditional use areas. Based on their recommendations, the Park Service will propose the designation of traditional use areas for resident zone communities for review and comment by the affected communities and the general public." The park's final GMP, issued in December 1986, reflected the SRC's request. But in early 1986 the SRC was unsure of how the NPS would decide in the matter, so that March it forged ahead and passed Resolution 86-11, as described below.
158 NPS, "Public Notice," July 23, 1986; Supt. NWAK to Subsistence Coordinator ARO, July 31, 1986; both in GAAR SRC file. Shaver's narrow perception of traditional activities is further borne out by the following statement that described Eskimos' changing lifeways: "Because once-traditional subsistence activities now take less time with modern technology and because jobs are scarce, time often hangs heavily on people's hands." C. Mack Shaver, "Traditional National Park Values and Living Cultural Parks: Seemingly Conflicting Management Demands Coexisting in Alaska's New National Parklands," in International Perspectives on Cultural Parks; Proceedings of the First World Conference, Mesa Verde National Park, 1984 (NPS/Colorado Historical Society, 1989), 313.
162 DENA SRC minutes, June 5, 1987, 1-2. A year later, at the park's next SRC meeting, the idea surfaced again, but most SRC members felt that "there was no pressing need to establish the zones" and the park's chief ranger, Tom Griffiths, "did not see a management problem at the present time." DENA SRC minutes, June 17, 1988, 4-5.
166 W. T. Ellis to "Dear Reviewer," August 15, 1985, in WRST SRC file; C. Mack Shaver to Lou Waller, November 21, 1985, in CAKR SRC file; Senate Report 96-413, 171. The Interior Department, as expected, rejected Wrangell-St. Elias's predator control proposal in its May 1988 response.
168 GAAR SRC, "Final Draft Outline, Subsistence Management Program for Gates of the Arctic National Park," June 19, 1986, 11-12; Susan Reece to Benjamin Nageak, May 18, 1988, 2-3; both in GAAR SRC file.
169 The "standalone preserves" included Bering Land Bridge, Noatak, and Yukon-Charley Rivers, while pre-ANILCA park units that allowed subsistence uses in specified areas included Denali (formerly Mount McKinley), Glacier Bay, and Katmai.
170 One Hoonah resident who fought for Glacier Bay subsistence rights during this period, and continues to do so today, is Robert Loescher, who served for a time as Sealaska Regional Corporation's Chief Executive Officer. Due in large part to his efforts, the Corporation sponsored a study, written by Norman Staton (A National Treasure or a Stolen Heritage: the Administrative History of Glacier Bay National Park and Preserve, with a Focus on Subsistence, 1999) which argues the legitimacy of reopening Glacier Bay to subsistence uses. Wayne Howell to author, December 11, 2001.
172 The study, written by Robert F. Schroeder and Matthew Kookesh, was entitled Subsistence Harvest and Use of Fish and Wildlife Resources and the Effects of Forest Management in Hoonah; it was published as Technical Paper No. 142 in ADF&G's Technical Paper series in November 1990. Similar results were presented in Robert G. Bosworth's "Consistency and Change in Subsistence Use in Glacier Bay, Alaska," in Proceedings of the Second Glacier Bay Symposium (NPS, 1988), 101-07.
176 See 36 CFR 1.4 and 36 CFR 13.1(u), as noted in the Federal Register for June 17, 1981, 31855 and June 30, 1983, 30275. The 1983 regulations, which applied to all NPS units outside of Alaska, defined a trap to include "a mechanical device designed to entrap or kill animals other than fish." This more liberal definition allowed for firearm use.
177 Federal Register 59 (November 15, 1994), 58804. The taking of wolves and other furbearers with a firearm, as just noted, was a serious issue in the national preserves, because sport hunters using aircraftsome of whom held state trapping licensescould legally access the preserves. It was not, however, an issue in the parks inasmuch as it was generally illegal to land aircraft within the parks and monuments; furbearers, as a result, were in little danger in those areas and few questioned the wisdom of NPS policy on this subject.
185 Contor to various NPS superintendents, July 2, 1985; Subsistence Liaison to File, September 25, 1985; both in WRST SRC file. In an October 3, 1985 letter to Senator Frank Murkowski, Alaska Regional Director Boyd Evison noted that the agency "decided not to restrict the use of aircraft for access to the national preserves ... due to the potential for public confusion, the circumstances leading up to the 1985 hunting seasons, past precedents, and the lack of clear authority in our regulations."
193 GAAR SRC meeting, January 29-31, 1986, 9, 17; CAKR GMP, December 1986, viii. Anthropologist Edwin Hall, asked to speak about "natural and healthy" populations at the January 1986 meeting, admitted that "I have difficulty with that concept."
199 CAKR SRC minutes, November 20, 1989, 5; Robert J. Wolfe and James Magdanz, The Sharing, Distribution, and Exchange of Wild Resources in Alaska (ADF&G, Division of Subsistence, January 1993), Section IV; Bob Gerhard interview, July 7, 2000; Paul R. Anderson to Harry Kalmakoff, Jr., December 2, 1998.
201 "An Act to Establish a National Park Service, and for Other Purposes" (39 Stat. 535), August 25, 1916, in Lary Dilsaver, ed., America's National Park System, the Critical Documents (Lanham, Md., Rowman and Littlefield, 1994), 46-47.
202 The Gates of the Arctic SRC, on January 24, 1985, passed a resolutionciting language in Section 808(a) of ANILCAthat called on its chairman "to attend, consult, and testify" at a wide range of meetings that affected park-area users. Also see Bob Larson to Lewis [sic] Waller, November 1, 1984, and James A. Schwarber to Richard Ring, January 23, 1986, both in GAAR SRC file.
205 W. T. Ellis to Bill Paleck, January 26, 1985, in WRST SRC file; WRST SRC minutes, August 1-2, 1985, 1; CAKR/KOVA SRC minutes, January 29-30, 1986, 2; WRST SRC minutes, April 7-8, 1986, 4; Bob Gerhard interview, February 15, 2001.
Last Updated: 14-Mar-2003