Showing posts with label subsistence. Show all posts
Showing posts with label subsistence. Show all posts
Monday, October 12, 2009
Wednesday, August 26, 2009
Time for another talk on subsistence
From Alaska Indigenous:
From the Anchorage Daily News article:
I wish the article had a little bit more detail on what is meant between the state and federal management difference. It is an incredibly complicated issue that got reduced to a paragraph or two - though really this needs to be played out in a statewide discussion. A REAL discussion, not the sort of commercial, flier blitz that tends to happen with big issues like this.
Ironic that the fish was going to the same place whether it was the people getting it in the first place, or the fish cops bringing it to them - the Angoon Senior Center. I know of many subsistence nets like this, and fished on them myself this summer, and most of the fish went to elders first, and then various families.
The most frustrating part of all of it is the lopsided management that prevents fish getting to many, many elders and families, for the sake of...? what? Too many trials and studies in which subsistence rights were given up or taken away because that "must be" a big reason fisheries or environmental problems were happening find that is probably not the case. When subsistence was gone, the fisheries or environmental problems got worse or stayed the same. The beluga whale problem right here in Southcentral is a good example of that.
Early this morning I picked up a piece of news from the Anchorage Daily Newspaper that Sen. Al Kookesh will fight a fishing citation issued by an Alaska State Trooper wildlife officer, on Admiralty Island, Alaska...
Kookesh stated the citation and fine is beside the point of the issue. If Sen. Kookesh follows through with the fight against the citation, then a possible court case might result in a contemporary judicial interpretation or opinion regarding the “rural preference” for subsistence law in the state of Alaska.
From the Anchorage Daily News article:
Megan Peters, a troopers spokeswoman, told the Juneau Empire the party was in possession of 148 sockeye salmon taken with a beach seine net. Each man had a valid subsistence permit allowing them to collectively take a total of 75 sockeye, she said...
Kookesh has a different take. Nine people were at the fishing site, he said. Only four were cited. A 10th person with a permit for an additional 100 fish was delayed.
The net belonged to him, Kookesh said, but it takes seven or eight people to work it. Thirty-eight fish went to the Angoon senior center, he said, and the rest went to 12 different families.
"Every time it goes out it feeds 10 to 15 families," Kookesh said of his net.
I wish the article had a little bit more detail on what is meant between the state and federal management difference. It is an incredibly complicated issue that got reduced to a paragraph or two - though really this needs to be played out in a statewide discussion. A REAL discussion, not the sort of commercial, flier blitz that tends to happen with big issues like this.
Ironic that the fish was going to the same place whether it was the people getting it in the first place, or the fish cops bringing it to them - the Angoon Senior Center. I know of many subsistence nets like this, and fished on them myself this summer, and most of the fish went to elders first, and then various families.
The most frustrating part of all of it is the lopsided management that prevents fish getting to many, many elders and families, for the sake of...? what? Too many trials and studies in which subsistence rights were given up or taken away because that "must be" a big reason fisheries or environmental problems were happening find that is probably not the case. When subsistence was gone, the fisheries or environmental problems got worse or stayed the same. The beluga whale problem right here in Southcentral is a good example of that.
Sunday, April 5, 2009
AFN letter says Palin's AG pick is "unfit"
Though I've been haunting the Alaska Federation of Natives (AFN) Web site all week, I didn't find the letter AFN was drafting about its vote to oppose Sarah Palin's choice for attorney general, Wayne Anthony Ross. I was incredibly grateful to be e-mailed the full press release... until I was shocked.
The firm wording is totally called for, but there was one thing they objected to that I didn't even know.
Wayne Anthony Ross thinks that ANCSA was a waste?
Holy crap.
The 1971 "Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act" - commonly referred to as ANCSA - is too big an issue to tackle in a single post, but at it's core, it was intended to settle the land dispute of Native land claims in Alaska. It quite literally "settled" with Native people by transferring money to go to newly formed corporations in exchange for lost land, and determined what was still Native land and give title. Twelve original regional corporations were formed to handle this money and titles to land, as well as several hundred village corporations.
Yet Mr. Ross believes neither Native and non-Native Alaskans "haven't got much to show for the expenditure?"
Again. Holy crap.
First... well, you got LAND. That was kind of the point. And despite who thinks the settlement was fair or not, Native people also got the title to land (also the point) and a settlement for the land taken.
Second, I think it's painfully clear Ross doesn't know much about ANCSA. People - political entities - from all over the world come to study this landmark settlement of aboriginal land claims. Highly flawed as it is, it is a model in the world for both governments and aboriginal people.
Third, the letter mentions oil construction, and anyone who knows anything about ANCSA knows that oil was the catalyst in the first place! My guess is Native people would still be trying to get the issue heard in court (as many tribes down south are) if it were not for oil. The motivation for the whole settlement was oil. Period. No ANCSA, no oil money.
I don't understand the animosity Ross seems to hold for Native people or issues, but it seems to point more towards willful ignorance at this point than anything. I didn't know anything about this guy to begin with, and the more I learn, the more appalled I am at the choice.
The letter in full:
Anchorage, Alaska – April 2, 2009
On Tuesday, March 30, the Alaska Federation of Natives’ Legislative Committee unanimously adopted a motion to oppose the nomination of Wayne Anthony Ross to be Attorney General of Alaska. Here are some of the reasons behind that decision.
Subsistence: Mr. Ross has been most vocal in his opposition to a rural subsistence priority, in both state and federal law. However, subsistence hunting, fishing and gathering are the very core of Alaska Native life, as they have been for thousands of years. The vast majority of an estimated 125,000 Natives in Alaska practice subsistence regularly in order to put food on the family dinner table. Fish constitute 59% of the statewide rural subsistence diet, but subsistence takes only 2% of all the fish annually harvested in Alaska. The other 98% go to commercial, personal use, and sport users. Most subsistence activities occur on federal lands and waters, where Congress has unequivocally enacted a rural priority (in Title VIII of the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980).
If subsistence cannot be protected from the overwhelming competition of other users, most villages will not be able to feed themselves and will disappear. Such an enormous out-migration to Alaska’s cities would create a socio-economic crisis that would harm all Alaskans - especially urban residents. A rural priority is not only humane, but it is the intelligent thing to do in the interest of all Alaskans.
In his most recent gubernatorial bid, Mr. Ross stated that, if elected, he would hire “…a band of junkyard dog assistant attorney generals to challenge the federal law…” This is old news. The constitutionality of Title VIII of ANILCA has been challenged time and again in the federal courts. The courts have consistently upheld the rural subsistence priority on federal lands and waters in Alaska. That is settled law.
Tribal Sovereignty: Mr. Ross’s contempt for Native leaders and their self-governing institutions is obvious. He opposes the very existence of tribal governments, which have exercised their authority since time immemorial. Many millions of federal dollars come into this state to serve Alaska Natives simply because the federal government has a government-to-government relationship with tribes in Alaska. The State of Alaska receives some of these monies directly, while other funds go directly to tribal consortia, non-profit associations, and tribal governments, to assist them in the delivery of vital human services. If Mr. Ross does not know these facts, he is uninformed. If he doesn’t care, he is irresponsible.
Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act: Mr. Ross has often opposed the 1971 Alaska Native Claims Settlement and the 1988 congressional amendments thereto. In 1987, he wrote that ANCSA had been a waste of public resources by Congress. He added: “…We average Americans, native and non-native alike, haven’t got much to show for the expenditure…”
That statement is not true. By settling Natives’ claims to the land, Congress cleared the right-of-way for construction of the oil pipeline. ANCSA, more than any event since Statehood, created modern Alaska. Everything that we have here today was made possible by that 1971 real estate sale between Natives and the United States. If it had not happened, the pipeline, the oil and the resulting economic boom would have been held up for decades in the federal courts. Mr. Ross’s view disregards the abiding legal principle of aboriginal land title, which descends from colonial times. Mr. Ross does not understand ANCSA’s history and legal foundation any more than he recognizes the benefits that it provided to everyone in Alaska.
Mr. Ross also criticized the 1991 Amendments to ANCSA, arguing that they would promote Native authority in Alaska. The truth is the exact opposite. The 1991 amendments were opposed by most of Alaska’s tribes because they saw the statute as failing to give tribes sufficient powers. Mr. Ross does not know what actually happened; but he waves “tribal sovereignty” as a scare tactic. That is politics, not law.
Legal Competence: Mr. Ross was among several candidates for the Alaska Supreme Court seat vacated by Justice Bryner in 2007, and for the Court of Appeals seat vacated by Judge Stewart in 2008. He did not make the “short list” of qualified applicants sent to the Governor for either seat.
Nominations for the state judiciary are handled by the Alaska Judicial Council, which rates all candidates by means of a Bar Survey answered by attorneys. The Survey has to be anonymous in order to encourage frank, honest answers. However, in a letter recently published by the Alaska Bar Association, Mr. Ross strongly objected to the anonymity of the Bar Survey. The secret ballot is an axiom of modern democratic process. Mr. Ross’s objection to it in his own case demonstrates a certain disregard for democracy, itself.
Between now and Mr. Ross’s confirmation hearing on April 8, AFN will strongly urge its membership, and all concerned citizens in Alaska, to ask their own legislators to oppose his confirmation. By his extremism, his biases and his lack of competence, Wayne Anthony Ross is unfit to be the Attorney General of Alaska.
Excellent and accurate letter.
For some of Ross' other quotes regarding Native and rural issues:
An article sent from SMR, regarding his opposition to building hate-crime legislation, focusing on Native education, etc.
On Native sovereignty and subsistence (from the ADN):
The crazy part of Ross' argument/defense of these types of comments is his assertion that people are jumping the gun, so to speak, on what his stance really is. That he "doesn't have positions" on these issues. Let me sum up the Tundra Drums interview with Ross by paraphrasing the answers he gives to every issue they ask him about:
"I never said anything bad, and if I did, it was because I was paid to."
He seems to think subsistence isn't even an issue anymore. Someone hasn't been paying attention.
His statements and battles from the past speak for themselves.
_
The firm wording is totally called for, but there was one thing they objected to that I didn't even know.
Wayne Anthony Ross thinks that ANCSA was a waste?
Holy crap.
The 1971 "Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act" - commonly referred to as ANCSA - is too big an issue to tackle in a single post, but at it's core, it was intended to settle the land dispute of Native land claims in Alaska. It quite literally "settled" with Native people by transferring money to go to newly formed corporations in exchange for lost land, and determined what was still Native land and give title. Twelve original regional corporations were formed to handle this money and titles to land, as well as several hundred village corporations.
Yet Mr. Ross believes neither Native and non-Native Alaskans "haven't got much to show for the expenditure?"
Again. Holy crap.
First... well, you got LAND. That was kind of the point. And despite who thinks the settlement was fair or not, Native people also got the title to land (also the point) and a settlement for the land taken.
Second, I think it's painfully clear Ross doesn't know much about ANCSA. People - political entities - from all over the world come to study this landmark settlement of aboriginal land claims. Highly flawed as it is, it is a model in the world for both governments and aboriginal people.
Third, the letter mentions oil construction, and anyone who knows anything about ANCSA knows that oil was the catalyst in the first place! My guess is Native people would still be trying to get the issue heard in court (as many tribes down south are) if it were not for oil. The motivation for the whole settlement was oil. Period. No ANCSA, no oil money.
I don't understand the animosity Ross seems to hold for Native people or issues, but it seems to point more towards willful ignorance at this point than anything. I didn't know anything about this guy to begin with, and the more I learn, the more appalled I am at the choice.
The letter in full:
Anchorage, Alaska – April 2, 2009
On Tuesday, March 30, the Alaska Federation of Natives’ Legislative Committee unanimously adopted a motion to oppose the nomination of Wayne Anthony Ross to be Attorney General of Alaska. Here are some of the reasons behind that decision.
Subsistence: Mr. Ross has been most vocal in his opposition to a rural subsistence priority, in both state and federal law. However, subsistence hunting, fishing and gathering are the very core of Alaska Native life, as they have been for thousands of years. The vast majority of an estimated 125,000 Natives in Alaska practice subsistence regularly in order to put food on the family dinner table. Fish constitute 59% of the statewide rural subsistence diet, but subsistence takes only 2% of all the fish annually harvested in Alaska. The other 98% go to commercial, personal use, and sport users. Most subsistence activities occur on federal lands and waters, where Congress has unequivocally enacted a rural priority (in Title VIII of the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980).
If subsistence cannot be protected from the overwhelming competition of other users, most villages will not be able to feed themselves and will disappear. Such an enormous out-migration to Alaska’s cities would create a socio-economic crisis that would harm all Alaskans - especially urban residents. A rural priority is not only humane, but it is the intelligent thing to do in the interest of all Alaskans.
In his most recent gubernatorial bid, Mr. Ross stated that, if elected, he would hire “…a band of junkyard dog assistant attorney generals to challenge the federal law…” This is old news. The constitutionality of Title VIII of ANILCA has been challenged time and again in the federal courts. The courts have consistently upheld the rural subsistence priority on federal lands and waters in Alaska. That is settled law.
Tribal Sovereignty: Mr. Ross’s contempt for Native leaders and their self-governing institutions is obvious. He opposes the very existence of tribal governments, which have exercised their authority since time immemorial. Many millions of federal dollars come into this state to serve Alaska Natives simply because the federal government has a government-to-government relationship with tribes in Alaska. The State of Alaska receives some of these monies directly, while other funds go directly to tribal consortia, non-profit associations, and tribal governments, to assist them in the delivery of vital human services. If Mr. Ross does not know these facts, he is uninformed. If he doesn’t care, he is irresponsible.
Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act: Mr. Ross has often opposed the 1971 Alaska Native Claims Settlement and the 1988 congressional amendments thereto. In 1987, he wrote that ANCSA had been a waste of public resources by Congress. He added: “…We average Americans, native and non-native alike, haven’t got much to show for the expenditure…”
That statement is not true. By settling Natives’ claims to the land, Congress cleared the right-of-way for construction of the oil pipeline. ANCSA, more than any event since Statehood, created modern Alaska. Everything that we have here today was made possible by that 1971 real estate sale between Natives and the United States. If it had not happened, the pipeline, the oil and the resulting economic boom would have been held up for decades in the federal courts. Mr. Ross’s view disregards the abiding legal principle of aboriginal land title, which descends from colonial times. Mr. Ross does not understand ANCSA’s history and legal foundation any more than he recognizes the benefits that it provided to everyone in Alaska.
Mr. Ross also criticized the 1991 Amendments to ANCSA, arguing that they would promote Native authority in Alaska. The truth is the exact opposite. The 1991 amendments were opposed by most of Alaska’s tribes because they saw the statute as failing to give tribes sufficient powers. Mr. Ross does not know what actually happened; but he waves “tribal sovereignty” as a scare tactic. That is politics, not law.
Legal Competence: Mr. Ross was among several candidates for the Alaska Supreme Court seat vacated by Justice Bryner in 2007, and for the Court of Appeals seat vacated by Judge Stewart in 2008. He did not make the “short list” of qualified applicants sent to the Governor for either seat.
Nominations for the state judiciary are handled by the Alaska Judicial Council, which rates all candidates by means of a Bar Survey answered by attorneys. The Survey has to be anonymous in order to encourage frank, honest answers. However, in a letter recently published by the Alaska Bar Association, Mr. Ross strongly objected to the anonymity of the Bar Survey. The secret ballot is an axiom of modern democratic process. Mr. Ross’s objection to it in his own case demonstrates a certain disregard for democracy, itself.
Between now and Mr. Ross’s confirmation hearing on April 8, AFN will strongly urge its membership, and all concerned citizens in Alaska, to ask their own legislators to oppose his confirmation. By his extremism, his biases and his lack of competence, Wayne Anthony Ross is unfit to be the Attorney General of Alaska.
Excellent and accurate letter.
For some of Ross' other quotes regarding Native and rural issues:
An article sent from SMR, regarding his opposition to building hate-crime legislation, focusing on Native education, etc.
"Alaskans are divided because we have too many people pointing out the perceived problems, and we don't have enough people pointing out how well we work together."
On Native sovereignty and subsistence (from the ADN):
''The idea of Native sovereignty is a 19th-century principle, and we are going into the 21st century.''
''Rural preference is wrong and not necessary to ensure subsistence foods."
The crazy part of Ross' argument/defense of these types of comments is his assertion that people are jumping the gun, so to speak, on what his stance really is. That he "doesn't have positions" on these issues. Let me sum up the Tundra Drums interview with Ross by paraphrasing the answers he gives to every issue they ask him about:
"I never said anything bad, and if I did, it was because I was paid to."
He seems to think subsistence isn't even an issue anymore. Someone hasn't been paying attention.
His statements and battles from the past speak for themselves.
_
Wednesday, April 1, 2009
Native groups vote to oppose Palin's AG pick
From the ADN rural blog, The Village:
AFN votes to oppose Ross appointment
AFN is the Alaska Federation of Natives - Native representatives from all around the state.The Association of Village Council Presidents also voted to oppose the appointment - Western Alaska representatives (the area you may have heard about lately with fuel shortages.)
In case you need a catch up - Palin appointed Wayne Anthony Ross to the attorney general position. Anti-sovereignty, anti-subsistence (not to mention very anti-gay,) Ross seems to be the last straw in Palin's long series of decisions against strong Native issues.
Yet she's never one to disappoint me with her irony. In her statement about Ross:
Alaska sovereignty good. Native sovereignty - eh, not so much. It's almost like she can't help but mention those key words that make it so ironic. Native attorney Heather Kendall-Miller on Palin:
The Village post cites another 1997 ADN article about Alaskan Indian country. Ross' quote about Native sovereignty:
The Great White Father? Can we at least try and pretend we didn't learn everything we know about Native sovereignty from old John Wayne movies?
The argument from Ross now that all this is out is that those comments he made on anti-soereignty, anti-subsistence were from another time. Not to mention that the anti-subsistence stance is that is wasn't anti-subsistence, but "pro-constitutional." Furthermore, these issues aren't as big a deal as they were.
Uh...
Only if you've had your head in the sand for the last couple years.
Palin's asserts that the protests are from a "few" vocal critics who may have a "different opinion."
First - it's not just a "few." Two major Alaska Native groups have now voted to oppose her appointment (and more individuals have spoken out), and though I don't know the vote count, I'm willing to bet it wasn't close.
Second - subsistence and sovereignty issues are not idle opinions about things that barely touch these people's lives. It's not an opinion about whether or not your favorite American Idol guy is better. It's an entire way of life.
Her response reminded me of (non-Native) friends that, once we were talking politics, said, "You always bring up the Native issues. We aren't talking about Native issues."
It's only outside the comfort of my own home and family that it becomes "Native issues." Within, it's just life. It's the stuff that makes up every day, not some subsect of my life.
I'm glad that these Native groups and leaders are finally taking a stand on the increasingly anti-rural break the government is taking... not that it was ever really "pro-rural." As even the Native groups say, they don't think there's a real chance he won't get affirmed, but there's a point that comes when you have to say enough is enough.
AFN votes to oppose Ross appointment
AFN is the Alaska Federation of Natives - Native representatives from all around the state.The Association of Village Council Presidents also voted to oppose the appointment - Western Alaska representatives (the area you may have heard about lately with fuel shortages.)
In case you need a catch up - Palin appointed Wayne Anthony Ross to the attorney general position. Anti-sovereignty, anti-subsistence (not to mention very anti-gay,) Ross seems to be the last straw in Palin's long series of decisions against strong Native issues.
Yet she's never one to disappoint me with her irony. In her statement about Ross:
Now more than ever, it is essential that Alaska’s sovereignty be protected...
Alaska sovereignty good. Native sovereignty - eh, not so much. It's almost like she can't help but mention those key words that make it so ironic. Native attorney Heather Kendall-Miller on Palin:
Heather Kendall-Miller, a Native American Rights Fund attorney in Anchorage, said Palin picked an attorney general that represents her values rather than the most qualified person. She said it reflects more on Palin than on Ross.
"She's shown no interest in trying to work with the Native community on important issues of subsistence or tribal sovereignty."
The Village post cites another 1997 ADN article about Alaskan Indian country. Ross' quote about Native sovereignty:
''It's a giant leap backwards into the 19th century,'' said Anchorage attorney Wayne Anthony Ross, who represented sport hunters in the 1989 lawsuit that overturned as unconstitutional the state's subsistence preference for rural residents. ''They want to see Alaska balkanized into little fiefdoms where these self-proclaimed Native leaders will reign supreme with help from the Great White Father.''
The Great White Father? Can we at least try and pretend we didn't learn everything we know about Native sovereignty from old John Wayne movies?
The argument from Ross now that all this is out is that those comments he made on anti-soereignty, anti-subsistence were from another time. Not to mention that the anti-subsistence stance is that is wasn't anti-subsistence, but "pro-constitutional." Furthermore, these issues aren't as big a deal as they were.
Uh...
Only if you've had your head in the sand for the last couple years.
Palin's asserts that the protests are from a "few" vocal critics who may have a "different opinion."
First - it's not just a "few." Two major Alaska Native groups have now voted to oppose her appointment (and more individuals have spoken out), and though I don't know the vote count, I'm willing to bet it wasn't close.
Second - subsistence and sovereignty issues are not idle opinions about things that barely touch these people's lives. It's not an opinion about whether or not your favorite American Idol guy is better. It's an entire way of life.
Her response reminded me of (non-Native) friends that, once we were talking politics, said, "You always bring up the Native issues. We aren't talking about Native issues."
It's only outside the comfort of my own home and family that it becomes "Native issues." Within, it's just life. It's the stuff that makes up every day, not some subsect of my life.
I'm glad that these Native groups and leaders are finally taking a stand on the increasingly anti-rural break the government is taking... not that it was ever really "pro-rural." As even the Native groups say, they don't think there's a real chance he won't get affirmed, but there's a point that comes when you have to say enough is enough.
Thursday, March 26, 2009
Palin says final farewell to the myth that she cares about Native people
I didn't know much about Palin's new attorney general, Wayne Anthony Ross, when it was announced today. There was certainly a huge reaction from... well, half the people I know, and pretty much all negative.
I was still in public school when he ran for governor, and don't remember anything about that run. "Corrupt Bastard" Kohring's attorney? Sounds about right for the current political decision-making process. I was prepared for the irony that she hires the guy who defended convicted felon/lawmaker Vic Kohring in his corruption scheme, her painting the "anti-corruption" picture and all.
But what else besides the somewhat expected? I spotted the "Who's Wayne Ross?" bit in the Anchorage Daily News, taking mostly from his run for governor. I was still in public school when he ran in '98 and don't remember him in it. I was queasy after reading it. Despite disagreeing with the great bulk of his positions (again, expected), there was this glaring... ALARMING bit:
If one more person tells me there's no way Palin can be against Native interests because her husband is part Native, I'm going to lose it again.
Palin picks an anti-sovereignty, anti-subsistence guy for her top lawyer?
Seriously, folks, if anyone could possibly still argue Palin cares at all for Native issues - no, not even that. I challenge anyone to argue she even cares about the Native VOTE at this point.
Speak up, Native leaders. We need to hear your voice on this.
I was still in public school when he ran for governor, and don't remember anything about that run. "Corrupt Bastard" Kohring's attorney? Sounds about right for the current political decision-making process. I was prepared for the irony that she hires the guy who defended convicted felon/lawmaker Vic Kohring in his corruption scheme, her painting the "anti-corruption" picture and all.
But what else besides the somewhat expected? I spotted the "Who's Wayne Ross?" bit in the Anchorage Daily News, taking mostly from his run for governor. I was still in public school when he ran in '98 and don't remember him in it. I was queasy after reading it. Despite disagreeing with the great bulk of his positions (again, expected), there was this glaring... ALARMING bit:
Native sovereignty threatens to create separate classes of Alaskans and would further divide the state, Ross said. ''The idea of Native sovereignty is a 19th-century principle, and we are going into the 21st century.''
Ross, an urban hunter, wants to keep the state constitutional guarantee of equal access to fish and game. ''Rural preference is wrong and not necessary to ensure subsistence foods,'' he says.
If one more person tells me there's no way Palin can be against Native interests because her husband is part Native, I'm going to lose it again.
Palin picks an anti-sovereignty, anti-subsistence guy for her top lawyer?
Seriously, folks, if anyone could possibly still argue Palin cares at all for Native issues - no, not even that. I challenge anyone to argue she even cares about the Native VOTE at this point.
Speak up, Native leaders. We need to hear your voice on this.
Photo courtesy of Dennis Zaki, http://www.alaskareport.com/ - Ross on right.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)