SUBSISTENCE: ALASKAs PERENNIAL DILEMMA

The U.S. Secretary of the Interior put out a press release a couple of months ago announcing that he was setting aside approximately $1 million to prepare the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to take over management of fish and game resources in Alaska on October 1. In effect, removing Alaskas state government from management of fish and game resources within Alaskas boundaries.

The secretary is doing this because Alaskas constitution is not in synch with the federal constitution when it comes to the issue of subsistence hunting and fishing.

The federal constitution gives a subsistence preference to those living in rural areas and, when fish and game stocks run low, to Native Americans, including Alaska Natives, so they can continue practicing their traditional and historical methods of subsisting off these resources. Federal courts have upheld this subsistence provision time and again.

The state constitution gives a subsistence preference to both rural and urban residents and the urban residents language is where the two constitutions clash. Basically the federal government is telling Alaska that it must conform to federal law if the state wants to continue managing fish and wildlife resources within its boundaries.

Congress, which is a branch of the federal government, tends to look at issues from a national perspective. Thus, Alaskas fish and game resources, and those of California, Idaho, Kansas, Wisconsin, etc., are looked upon to some extent as national resources.

State legislators, whether here or in another state, tend to view these same resources as state resources, and many of them believe the management of these resources is a state right, and the federal government should butt out.

In Alaska, politicians on both sides of the issue have been exploiting it for their own purposes for more than two decades, generally making the most noise as an election year approaches. The issue was, for example, on the states general election ballot in 1982 and has come up in almost every gubernatorial election year since, though not on the ballot.

State legislators have filed one lawsuit after another and spent a good deal of public money trying to convince the federal courts that their states rights position is correct. The courts have, at least thus far, shot each of these down, ruling that federal law takes precedence over state law in such matters.

In essence, these state legislators seem to be saying that the rest of the nation the other 49 states should change their laws to comply with Alaskas laws on subsistence. Subsistence, however, is not that hot an issue in most of the other states, so it is unlikely they will go along, or urge their respresentatives in congress to go along.

Gov. Tony Knowles is now planning to call the Alaska Legislature into yet another special session this fall to make another attempt to resolve the subsistence issue. The governor is proposing subsistence language to bring state law into compliance with federal law so the state can continue managing fish and game resources here. About $200,000 has been budgeted for the special session.

Many legislators seem inclined to reject the governors proposal, which means more public money will probably be spent without accomplishing a thing except for giving the politicians a modicum of publicity and, of course, lining the pockets of the lawyers representing the two sides on the issue.