The Casualty in Alaska’s Culture War
There is a culture war going on. And the epicenter of that culture war is right here in Alaska. It is outrageous in its brazenness and tragic in its effect. It is political in its tactic and economic in its objective. It is a classic tale of western frontier conquest. I am speaking, of course, of the war on the Native subsistence culture of Alaska.
The passage of the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA) in 1980 linked federal land policy in Alaska to a subsistence use priority. Congress, in Title VIII of ANILCA, made it clear that they wanted a ‘rural’ priority in the 60 percent of Alaska that is under federal management. A rural priority (which was a compromise for the original draft language that said “Native preference”) meant that the priority for harvesting wildlife should go to the people who live in the management area and for whom subsistence represents a ‘customary and traditional’ use.
The online journal Cultural Survival notes
“…ANILCA distinguishes Native subsistence as something exceptional and cultural noting that ‘the opportunity for subsistence uses by rural residents of Alaska…is essential to Native physical, economic, traditional, and cultural existence and to nonNative physical, economic, traditional, and social existence.’ Although the distinction seems minor, it betrays a deeper philosophical division between Native and non-Native conceptions of subsistence.”
One indicator of this ‘philosophical division’ may be seen in the 2006 decision by the Federal Subsistence Board to reclassify the village of Saxman near Ketchikan from a rural to non-rural community. This reclassification is in the news because the 5-year waiting period is over and the decision is scheduled to go into effect.
As KTUU’s Rebecca Palsha put it so succinctly back in 2006 for a new story on the board’s decision:
“Who should have first dibs on hunting and fishing on federal lands? A group of Anchorage residents are making that decision at a two day meeting of the Federal Subsistence Board…”
The rationale by this ‘group of Anchorage residents’ was that Saxman is connected by a road to a modern city and are effectively integrated with the Ketchikan economy.
My research on the question of the ‘integration’ of the village of Saxman with Ketchikan reveals that in 2006 the numbers do not support such a conclusion. The Division of Community and Regional Affairs utilizes the American Community Survey statistics from the Bureau of the Census that breaks data down to the community level. Here is what it tells us. Saxman is a majority Native community and Ketchikan is not. 51 percent of Saxman’s residents are Native Alaskan/American; 25 percent of Ketchikan’s population are Native Alaskan/American. Despite the road that connects the two communities, Saxman has retained it’s ethnic character. In fact the web tourism promotion by the city notes the following regarding the character of Saxman:
“Blessed with abundant resources, West Coast people survived by subsistence, living off the land and the water- still a crucial part of their cultural identity.”
The American Community Survey also tells us that while Ketchikan had an unemployment rate of 7.3 percent, Saxman had an unemployment rate of 30.7 percent. Again, it would seem that a complete socioeconomic integration would reveal a smaller difference. Finally, there is poverty. According to the ACS, the percentage of folks in Ketchikan living below the poverty rate in 2006 was 10.8 percent; in Saxman that figure is 25 percent.
Again, the visitor coming to Ketchikan learns that
“…Coastal Native people have a matrilineal society; children inherit rights through their mothers. The Tlingit social system is based on two equal moieties, or halves (the Eagle or Wolf and the Raven).
Traditions are changing with the times although much remains and is as strong as ever…”
So the question remains in my mind that, if the presence of the road has not altered the economic disparities between the communities, how can the Federal Board be so certain that the road has altered the cultural dependence on the customary and traditional uses of subsistence resources?
But if the Federal Board seems arbitrary in its subsistence policies, the state of Alaska is downright hostile.
From 1990-2002, three state governors, 12 regular legislatures, five special legislative sessions on subsistence, and a host of task forces, mediators and other initiatives all failed to resolve the unwillingness of Alaska’s lawmakers to allow a rural subsistence preference. In 2002, the outgoing Knowles administration gave up after 8 years of trying to work with the legislature. Federal management then became a reality. Since 2002, through the governorships of Murkowski, Palin and Parnell subsistence management on state lands became increasingly subjugated to the very lobby that had worked so assiduously against it. Murkowski’s appointment of Ron Sommerville to the Board of Game, for example, was a direct repudiation of a serious state subsistence management regime.
The Alaska Outdoor Council, the organization that spearheaded anti-subsistence political assaults since the passage of ANILCA, championed Sommerville’s appointment. Governor Sarah Palin then continued the Murkowski assault on the Federal Subsistence Board’s ‘customary and traditional’ use finding for the harvesting of moose by the small Copper River village of Chistochina. A positive C & T finding by the Federal Board entitles residents of a specific community to the subsistence priority under Title VIII of ANILCA and such a finding was anathema to the state Board of Game (BOG). Chistochina became a test case. The Palin administration sued the federal board and promptly lost in court.
Palin’s resignation and the ascent of Parnell simply meant the continuation of the Alaska Outdoor Council influence on the BOG. It was during this time that a Parnell appointed Wildlife Chief, Corey Rossi, who, along with BOG Chair, Cliff Judkins and BOG member Bob Bell — All past or present Alaska Outdoor Council — are alleged to have committed criminal violations of subsistence regulations.
Again, from Cultural Survival:
“As Nelson Frank, a Haida from southeast Alaska put it in his testimony before the Alaska Native Review Commission (recorded in the book Village Journey by Thomas Berger):”
“Subsistence living, a marginal way of life to most, has no such connotation to the Native people of southeast Alaska. The relationship between the Native population and the resources of the land and the sea is so close that an entire culture is reflected… Traditional law … was passed from generation to generation, intact, through repetition of legends and observance of ceremonials which were largely concerned with the use of land, water, and the resources contained therein. Subsistence living was not only a way of life, but also a life-enriching process. Conservation and perpetuation of subsistence resources was part of that life and was mandated by traditional law and custom.”
This is the casualty of Alaska’s culture war against subsistence.
[Photo: Clan House at Saxman, Alaska]
Saxman is not simply ‘connected by road to Ketchikan’. Saxman is part of the the Ketchikan community, right next door and surrounded by the greater Ketchikan community. All goods and services are in Ketchikan (except for a single gas station). Saxman is no more ‘rural’ than is Eagle River or Palmer. So different considerations will be required to keep Saxman as a subsistence dependent community.
“A community with a population of 2,500 or less is deemed rural, unless it possesses significant characteristics of a nonrural nature, or is considered to be socially, economically, and communally part of a nonrural area.”
https://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2007/05/07/07-2205/subsistence-management-regulations-for-public-lands-in-alaska-subpart-c-nonrural-determinations#p-31
If Saxman does not consider itself socially and communally part of a non-rural area ,ie Ketchikan , how is it that someone outside it can use measures which seem to make it so?
That there are economic ties is inescapeable, that they take away rural status is shaky.
And really, Saxman is much more rural than Palmer and Eagle River. Driving into Ketchikan for supplies or services is nothing like driving into ANC for the same.
There’s Southcentral and there’s the rest of the state. Period.
You state the case so eloquently, Alaska Pi.
I have some experience which gives me an unusual perspective of the Alaska bush. In 1972, I was living on a hill in Harrisburg, PA, when Hurricane Agnes flooded much of the state (apart from losing power and water, which I was prepared for, my home was unaffected). When a federal flood insurance program was instituted following that storm, I worked for an engineering firm, as one of many draftsmen creating standardized maps of flood-prone places (first of incorporated areas, then we got another contract for unincorporated areas). The federal government needed the maps of every area that might be flooded in the future.
Because of my skill set (I was the only person in the drafting room who never had a map returned for correction), all the Alaska maps were given to me. Even calling them maps makes me laugh, all these decades later. They were aerial photos of the different areas, with handwritten street names on the squiggly dirt roads. I put them all into proper form, but they weren’t really maps, and they weren’t roads by the standards of the lower 48.
https://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2007/05/07/07-2205/subsistence-management-regulations-for-public-lands-in-alaska-subpart-c-nonrural-determinations
I am having a very hard time with the decision to include Saxman in Ketchikan’s area. The criteria for judgment makes a passing run at trying to deal with cultural notions of subsistence but the metrics used to determine rural or nonrural areas have doodly squat to do with it.
While the State theoretically continues to allow harvest of many traditional foods in the area , removing the federal subsistence rural designation is just wrong.
Pi: you are amazing!
You are an Earth Native like all of us; struggling against extinction. Miigwetch!
I have been..the firetender outside during sweats..as the heat/reduced oxygen lay me low, and I have eaten..First Foods..in a long house celebration..with several hundred tribal people..here in Oregon. I have asked some..to come ..in their seasons..and harvest what they may need. Gifts have been given..in blankets and one..in an elk hide..that had been my fathers. For 80 years here..we have watched over..certain lands..in this end of the valley..that others pay no attention to. The state..and one tribe..are in a ‘number of years’..protective mode now..for the lands in question. I dispaired of the protections..ever..coming to pass..but..they are happening..as we speak. I am tribal, but not..native american tribal..the mongolian-finn is my individual grouping..within..the family of man. Like the Occupy Movements..has anyone tried to bring a huge contingent of members from every state and from canada..to..bring this situation..to the ..World stage?
Yes, dear juneaudream, there are indigenous peoples’ conferences held annually, each time in a different location, for learning and sharing. Here’s one:
http://indianinthemachine.wordpress.com/2011/02/12/wipce-world-indigenous-peoples-conference-on-education-august-14-18-in-peru/
Here’s another group, perhaps of interest for the Finnish connection:
http://www.arcticcentre.org/?DeptID=7768
And a little something on the Mongols:
http://karakalpak.com/mongols.html
Occupy Earth!
Elstun Lauesen, I always look forward to your posts with a combination of curiosity and dread — curiosity, because I always learn something from you, and dread because — well, it’s usually something awful, and often downright outrage-making.
This country has treated its First Peoples abysmally. My Native friends in SD are on the worst patch of land possible; the soil’s so alkaline it has to be covered in manure in order for anything to grow (which doesn’t stop my brilliant gardener friend from growing some of the best organic food I’ve ever eaten). Her husband’s family is not from the area; their tribe was moved there. The US has never adhered to the terms of a single treaty.
The difference in Alaska, as leenie17 pointed out above, is that the First Alaskans actually live where or near where their ancestors lived. Playing politics with their way of life is disgusting, and disgustingly prevalent. Their affairs, including subsistence, should be in their own hands.
I can give an example. I hate it when the Japanese hunt whales for food. The practice only dates back to WWII, when it was a matter of survival. They mask it in the name of scientific research, but the only research they’re doing is canning whale meat. They have plenty of other food. When circumpolar natives (in whatever country) hunt whale, as they have for thousands of years, I have no objection. No, I wouldn’t eat it, but I eat no flesh of any kind. Let them have what they need; they have little enough. Rant over.
Sorry for the dread. Someday–I hope before it is not too late–humankind will realize that we are all Natives on this Earth. Indigenous peoples will lead the way for all Earth Natives: to peace or to extinction.
Perfectly true, and perfectly said. My people wandered for centuries — millennia, even. I’ve always been offended by the concept of a passport; I’m a citizen of the planet. (Although I’m really glad to have an American passport; next to a Swiss passport, it’s the most valuable piece of paper on earth.) I hope we can all gain enough wisdom to care for ourselves and our planet. I hope we don’t destroy ourselves before we learn to live in harmony with our beautiful home.
So you are saying a ‘tradition’ only 60 years old (Japanese whaling) is not worth as much as one that is 600 years old? Where is the dividing line between ‘worthwhile’ and ‘worthless’ traditions? Just askin’.
I never called either tradition worthwhile or worthless. I just don’t like the Japanese pretending they’re doing scientific research when what they’re doing is canning whale meat for food.
Mr Lauesen-
Thank you for this. Much to think about here.
Need to go back and look at some things I once thought I knew but I do have a question if you stop back in here.
The philosophical-division thing- the presumption that a road in and of itself affords “urban” status to a community- doesn’t that fly completely against the notion of subsistence culture in the Native community? How does such an odd measure get used by the Fed Subsistence Board to determine status? A road has no thing to do with the deeper and all encompassing notion of subsistence.
Nor in the we’re-a-cash-economy-now world does it make sense for a community of less than 450 people to be classified as urban in any way shape or measure- even in Alaska. Ketchikan may be nearby but it is a world away as well.
Dear Alaska Pi: your question lies at the very heart of the cultural ‘war’. The ‘road’ does what? bring the village into contact with another culture and, therefore, the indigenous character of the Village is compromised? Will we next determine that television, the internet, and newspapers might also ‘taint’ the culture? In truth the road is only a symbol. Subsistence, in the minds of most Alaskans, is just one of a number of competing ‘uses’ for scarce resources. Therefore, because the road allows the Villagers to drive into Ketchikan and buy groceries, the Village no longer should be eligible for a subsistence ‘priority’ of wildlife resources. Customary and Traditional be damned. Eliminate subsistence = more critters for trophy hunters. Makes sense, right?
The Tongass National Forest surrounds us all here.
The very idea that sport hunters and fishers should have equal footing with (or anywhere near it ) local peoples who are hundreds of miles from anything like the foods and goods , in cost and availability that folks making the &%%&*(ing rules have, is dumber than a rock,
And that’s before we look at the air and water which are the routes for our goods to come in on (whether we have dinky butt lil roads between villages and towns to distribute some of them after they get here or not , we have no REAL roads)
and it ALL totally ignores the real and abiding notion that the Fed, at least, was going to protect subsistence in its real sense with ANILCA, even if the State couldn’t get it’s act together to do so.
Pfffft.
The original plan for native preference just wasn’t going to fly. In an attempt to provide for most natives, the “rural preference” plan was substituted.
That would provide a subsistence preference for “most” natives while allowing for some non natives (many who are quite wealthy) to qualify. Of course, the natives who live in urban centers got left behind, but this was the best that could be accomplished through ANILCA.
Ever since the enactment, the state has meddled with the issue, trying to appease their largely urban constituents. It seems a bit odd to me that the current system allows for subsistence hunting and fishing by Anchorage residents using rather expensive airplanes, boats, and ATVs.
Maybe the word subsistence has outlived its usefulness? Perhaps “traditional” could be substituted?
I agree that the BOG has been stacked for the purpose stated. Alaska is being managed as giant game preserve for guides and to a lesser degree sport hunters. As the population of humans increases in Alaska, the pressure on the wild game also increases.
Eventually, something is going to have to give.
“Alaskan Native fishing and hunting has, until relatively recently, been governed solely by indigenous systems of unwritten customs, beliefs, and practices that ensured the survival of families and villages. These unwritten rules were generally effective from a conservation standpoint. Equally important, they dovetail the complex web of social, cultural, and economic activities and personal relationships that define Alaska Native societies”
http://www.culturalsurvival.org/ourpublications/csq/article/will-federal-or-state-management-afford-alaska-natives-a-more-effective-
Whether the word subsistence has outlived its usefulness or not, we are usually talking about 2 distinct notions when discussing this set of issues.
If we try to talk about it as traditional much of the baggage will come along with it.
This is a racial and cultural set of problems which we pretty much don’t deal with out in the open .
I agree with you Pi. I just see using the word “subsistence” to describe an Anchorage based hunter seems a little disingenuous.
I have hunted and fished in Alaska since the 60s, and I have seen drastic changes in both the management of game, and the health of the game populations. I hope the trend of management for the guides doesn’t leave those who really depend on the game out in the cold.
I know you do agree, GoI3ig, but I’m not sure the use of subsistence is disingenuous in the ANC context you point to or whether it has become lodged in people’s minds as the simplisitic dictionary definition of subsistence as basic survival .
I think there has been a loss of the full meaning of subsistence and that that is a real problem . It is not merely hunting or fishing to subsist/survive and never has been for the Native community.
I also think great care should be taken if we try to talk about it all in a different way. Traditional has a lot of freight hung on it now too.
Is there not enough land in this enormous state for everyone to live the way their culture dictates?
Are there not enough animals for everyone to harvest the way their culture dictates?
Oh sorry, I forgot, it’s more important to sacrifice the needs of cultures thousands of years old so that there are more animals for wealthy trophy hunters from out of state to catch. Silly me!
The Alaskan Native peoples are some of the few indigenous groups in our country who have lived in the same locations for generations. Far too many Native groups in the lower 48 have been relocated to lands that no one else wanted and thereby lost that connection with their history, losing touch with family and culture along the way. The Alaska Natives have such a precious thread to their long and beautiful history that it is criminal to allow greed and ignorance to break it.
But Alaska “belongs” to the self entitled, manifest destiny, white euro’s i.e.: America.
They bought it fare and square from the Russians who subjugated, raped, murdered, enslaved, committed cultural, religious and ethnic genocide against the original peoples.
WHAT COULD BE MORE AMERICAN THAN THAT.?
P.S. Don’t tell me i cant kill my predator competitors in order to have more things to kill for myself, my angry and vengeful god gave me dominion over the beasts.