AFN to vote on resolution to force subsistence to mean ‘Native only’

Among the dozens of resolutions to be considered at this week’s Alaska Federation of Natives annual convention in Anchorage, one stands out as particularly divisive in Alaska: The Native group wants Natives in rural Alaska to have subsistence rights that no one else can have.

The issue is complicated but the resolution is clear in its implications: Whites, Filipinos, Blacks, or Hispanics living in rural Alaska would not be entitled to subsistence priority, as they are now under law. A white man married to a Native woman would not be able to subsistence hunt, but his wife could. Essentially, hunting rights would become race-based in Alaska. An Alaska Native living in a Seattle high-rise would have subsistence rights, while a Latino living in a cabin in Chefonak would not be able to hunt subsistence.
The resolution asks Alaska’s congressional delegation to push for a revisit of Title VII of the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA) to permanently protect Natives as priority users. It’s unclear where the delegation stands on a matter that would create race-based hunting and fishing laws.

The AFN’s 57th convention starts Thursday at the Dena’ina Convention Center, with thousands of Natives attending from around the state. The vote on the proposals is expected on Saturday, the same day Rep. Mary Peltola has been allotted 20 minutes on the agenda to give an address to the crowd.

The resolution brings up an old subject of much contention: the Katie John decision, a much-litigated court case that pits the rights of Natives against all other users of fish and game resources in Alaska. Alaska law has a rural preference for subsistence, not exclusively a Native preference.

According to the resolution, AFN thinks that the State’s rural preference is an attack on Natives:

“The State of Alaska has nonetheless chosen, for decades, to continue to attack the federal subsistence fisheries protections enshrined in Title VIII of ANILCA and the Katie John cases despite the fact that commercial fisheries harvest over 95% of fish stocks, subsistence and sports fishing is less than 5%.; and The State of Alaska has escalated its attacks in recent years and has undertaken a series of new, aggressive litigation aimed at actively undermining Alaska Natives’ right to subsistence; and In one of those cases, United States v. Alaska, the State of Alaska now attempts to rewrite longstanding law and erase the Katie John decisions; andA decision from the United States Supreme Court could mean the elimination of all remaining federally-protected subsistence fishing rights for Alaska Native people at a time of immediate critical need for the rural subsistence priority in times of shortage…”

The Federal government transferred the authority to manage fish and wildlife in Alaska to the new State government in 1960, and the State Constitution has a rural preference. State subsistence law has a priority for rural subsistence use over all other uses of fish and wildlife, but does not define subsistence users as specifically Native.

The resolution is supported by the AFN board and the Association of Village Council Presidents.

Its just another example of the globalist democrats dividing the country racially, much like they used BLM to do.

I find it crazy that native tribes all over the country back democrats, and they are the ones attacking hunting, fishing, whaling, trapping rights. They put the native sealers out of business in Canada and destroyed the fur market. They are anti gill net and against killing anything, but yet convinced Natives that hunt and fish for their livelihood that they are democrats. Pretty good trick.

Now they are brainwashing them to be anti white because like Joe Biden says whites are the biggest threat to the country. Its to create racial tensions.

There are already racist hunting laws on the books where only natives can take seals, whales, and walrus.

I lived in a native village for 40 years and can't legally hunt a seal to eat, even though there is no biological reason I cant harvest one. There used to be a bounty on seals in Alaska, and I would like seal meat, so would my daughter who is half Native.

When I am hunting moose with my buddies, and they spot a seal. They don't pull the boat to shore and tell me to get out. In fact if I mention it they laugh as if its ridicules.

I am fortunate to be able to harvest substance foods of many types and all of it comes back to the village, and is eaten, and shared right here, and helps help offset the high cost of food at the store for me and many others.

The high store prices don't care about skin color.

If AFN wants to beat their chest for the democrats. Just remember they threw their support behind Joe Biden. So did AVCP and every Native Corp. Now they can't afford food, or gas.

All brainwashed.

The article is confused on this point. This is ANILCA, not state law.

Jeff I agree it's baffling. Politics is not logical.

Some Native corporations like Doyon and Native entities like Tanana Chiefs Conference no longer participate with AFN because their views/ agenda have become so extreme. I too can not understand why people would vote against their own self interest. I remember when biden took office everyone in the village was cheering and celebrating. Now that gas is upwards of $15 a gallon in some villages , food prices are crazy, prices on everything is insanely high no one is cheering or celebrating anymore but it wouldn't surprise me to see people still vote for biden again.

I think all the corporation CEO's should apologize to their shareholders for tricking them into to voting for Joe Biden and now have to pay twice as much for food and gas.


Just wait until you see natives show up at the hospital and there is no room because its full of illegals, same with the hotels and housing.

And your right, they will vote democrat again.

"State Constitution has a rural preference. State subsistence law has a priority for rural subsistence use over all other uses of fish and wildlife, but does not define subsistence users as specifically Native."
This statement may have been true or the law from 1960 - 1988. 1989 McDowell challenged the constitutionality of "rural priority or rural preface". That Alaska Supreme Court sided with McDowell. The court decided it was unconstitutional to give preface by domicile for hunting, fishing and trapping. The court further declared the state could not give preface by race. That all Alaskans are eligible to participate in subsistence opportunities.

And that is why the Feds ultimately took control of said activities on federal lands.
Don't think the U.S. Constitution is going to have verbiage singling out "Native" preference.
Alas, the Libs and Leftists will almost certainly try to wanker it in there.

Yukon Jeff I’m not sure it could have been said any better


We all live here now, and we all need to eat and have families to feed.



Can’t let them try to convince us that we are on different teams.

Because it is actually them, who is on the opposing team.

Heard a rumor at AFN is, Joe Biden wants to introduce Mary Peltola to Hunter. She's already been noticed as a valuable member of the Biden crime family!

The states response.

https://mustreadalaska.com/state-of...-afns-accusatory-subsistence-resolution/

Thanks for the link, Jeff.

My ancestors hunted, trapped and fished for thousands of years before me, just as everyone alive today's ancestors did. Not a lick different than a "native"!

You got that right, wolfer.

The Natives settled all of their claims, based on aboriginal rights and otherwise, in the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act, which they supported. ANCSA created Native regional and village corporations and granted them sole title to vast tracts of land.

The Natives have sole hunting and fishing rights on this land. Why should they now come back for special rights on public land? Their claims were settled.

Jim

Were Native hospitals provided by other ethnicities that can't use them part of ANCSA or ANILCA? Special rights is what America is all about.

Because someone feels that they are entitled to preferential treatment.

Let the comments fly, I am sick of the subsistence bias. Everyone wants equal or greater access at the recourses.

I want to play the card “because I identify as indigenous”. I already know it will go over like a fart in church but, I have lived here for time immoral also through my ancestors. Why the heck am I barred from harvesting resources vs. a pedigree card?

It’s not about equality, is it? It’s about leverage. Convince me that I am wrong……

I just got a bunch of special rights when I turned 60 ( free license eligible ) this year. There were a slew of them related to migratory birds.

I want to be able to hunt marine mammals. Loose goal of 500 sea otters a year. Harvest and market them. A few seals would be cool also.

Maybe they just need to stay and hunt on the property they own and not have "Special Rights" on other lands and want only "NATIVE" people to be able to trap. Just like what is occurring in states like California. President Biden signed Executive order 13985 on his first day in office banning all forms of systemic racism, this in theory has the grounds to ban "Native only" privileges to feed yourself or make a living as you should be able to. In other words, perhaps "Native only" hunting, trapping and fishing rights off of reservations should be disavowed? It's a plausible argument. What's your thought Jim?