Subsistence, the problem that wont quit

So, we have another extension. This one delays for almost another year the federal takeover of fish management in Alaska.

What does this move, swiftly engineered a couple of weeks ago by our congressional delegation and approved by U.S. Secretary of the Interior Bruce Babbitt, really mean? And what does it accomplish?

On paper, it gives the Alaska Legislature more time to ask Alaskans via the ballot whether they will amend the state constitution to allow residents in federally-defined rural areas priority for subsistence harvesting of fish and game. Remember, this would remove from our state constitution existing provisions that give all Alaskans equal access to the states natural resources.

Those arguing against such action see it not as a hunting-and-fishing issue, but as a violation of fundamental civil rights a constitutional change that would create two classes of Alaskans.

Its a sound argument. It would mirror an imaginary law making sale items in urban grocery stores available first to only city dwellers, before rural residents were allowed to buy the items. We suspect such a law would be struck down quickly by the courts. We believe a fair review by the U.S. Supreme Court would result just as quickly in striking down phrases in Title VIII of the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act that call for just such action in reverse.

So far, a review by the nations highest court has been prevented by those who favor amending the Alaska Constitution to comply with ANILCA. Alaskas own high court long ago ruled against such favoritism.

Last week, Gov. Tony Knowles told the Frontiersmans managing editor … a different supreme court might allow the state by regulation not constitutional change to allow rural preference for subsistence.

We agree. Alaskans are very neighborly. Almost all of us will voluntarily give help to a neighbor who needs it. We simply dont need to legislate neighborliness especially when such laws would open the floodgates for other, very unneighborly civil-rights violations.

Those who, for one reason or another, have come to prefer a federal takeover including the powerful Alaska Federation of Natives are so dismayed by the additional delay they have called for Babbitts resignation or removal from office. Many who remain determined to resist what they perceive as illegal federal intrusion are equally disgusted. They see no change in the federal demands.

But we suspect the federal government has serious doubts that its takeover would survive a challenge in the U.S. Supreme Court, and that could be one reason for the pull-back. Another could be the huge cost.

U.S. Department of Interior officials have cited figures such as $18 million annually to assume total control of hunting and fishing. (The federal takeover of fish-and-game managment would be ostensibly for subsistence purposes on federal lands and in navigable waterways, but the feds have also warned they might exercise extra-territorial powers all the way to armed Coast Guard intervention to shut down commercial fisheries in state waters, too, if they deemed such action necessary to assure their version of subsistence requirements.)

The federal tab, we suggest, could be many times higher than $18 million yearly particularly if the feds were to get no cooperation from state agencies, and had to come up with all their own data and facilities to plan and enforce compliance.

Morally, Alaska is winning this battle.

Moral correctness is the high ground. We see no reason to change the states course. We hope the feds, finally, are beginning to see many reasons to reverse their course.

Paul Stuartmanaging editor