Friday, May 2, 2008 - New servers are in! Click-in for more info!
VoyForums

Support VoyForums by visiting our sponsor, www.PainEase.com.

[ VoyUser Login optional ] [ Contact Forum Admin ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1, 2, [3] ]

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Date Posted: 03:37:47 04/28/04 Wed
Author: Don Johnson
Subject: Rural Moon - rural subsistance fishing priority

Rural Moon - rural subsistance fishing priority in Alaska
IP: 24.237.250.150
Posted on April 15, 2004 at 03:53:01 AM by Don Johnson

Granting a rural subsistance fishing priority in Alaska would not be a
problem if the
current residents of Alaska had not aquired residency under the
understanding that wildlife,
fisheries and waters would be placed into a common use trust. Under this
trust
it doesn't matter where you live, all individuals get an equal level of
common use access.
The problem with granting a rural subsistance priority to an "individual" is
that it would
force Alaska to violate its current common use agreement with its residents.
This is why Alaska and the U.S. federal government have been at odds over a
rural
subsistance priority. The federal government desires Alaska to break its
current
common use agreement with its residents, in favor of a new federal standard
which allows
an individual rural resident to gain a rural priority access to Alaska's
natural resources.
Alaska has resisted this unreasonable deal for over 20 years.

The first probable solution is that Alaska could meet the federal government
halfway
by applying common use rights to non-rural areas and priority subsistance
rights to
rural areas. Once the rural subsistance priority were applied to only the
land, the state
could then legally manage the land for a subsistance priority.
If fisheries management projected a problem getting enough fish to a rural
area,
all other down line uses could be restricted until the problem were
resolved.
This possible solution could be acceptable to both the federal and state
governments.
The geographic priority would not present a Constitutional problem for
Alaska and
the rural individuals would receive a priority by way of the land.
Non-rural common users could become rural priority users by traveling to a
rural area
and rural users could become non-rural users by also traveling.
The problem with a rural land priority is that the federal government
demands that the
rural priority be attached to the individual and not the land. That demand
runs right
into a wall with regard to the Alaska Constitution. The Alaska Constitution
requires
that all of its trust natural resources be open to common use.
This possible solution requires the federal and state government to accept a
rural
"land" priority instead of an individual rural priority.

The second probable solution is if the federal and state governments do not
wish
to compromise as in the first solution, Alaska would be forced to change its
Constitution and grant a rural priority to the individual.
Once the state did this, the state could then also legally require [rural
residents only]
to purchase a non-rural stamp in order to access non-rural areas for hunting
and fishing.
Like non-resident licenses, the state could then charge rural residents up
to three times
more for these stamps than it would a non-rural resident.
Is requiring only rural residents to pay outragous hunting & fishing stamp
fees really
the way the federal government thought the Alaska subsistance issue would
go?
I thought the reason for a subsistance priority was to allow people to live
off the land,
not have their resource access fees raised.

The third probable solution would be for both Alaska and the federal
government to
agree to go back to the way things were originally setup.
Historically Alaska was setup to only have common use of its trust natural
resources.
All individuals from anywhere in the United States received the same common
use
access to all Alaska trust natural resources. This historic standard of
equality appears
to now be unacceptable to both Alaska, with its "teared" priority access
program and
the federal government, with its "rural" priority access program.

I do not see any other probable solutions. To resolve the subsistance issue
you must
chose one of the following;

1.] Grant a rural priority to the land.
2.] Grant a rural priority to the individual.
3.] Grant everyone a rural priority with equal access.

If we grant a rural priority to the land, things would not be fair thus
upsetting some
non-rural Alaskan's who would be forced to travel to rural areas.
If we grant a rural priority to the individual, things would not be fair
thus upsetting
some Alaskan's because they were eventually disenfranchised from non-rural
areas.
If we keep the present common use standard for everyone, the federal
government
will be upset because it has promised some folks the " Rural Moon " and
won't be able to
deliver. As anyone can see no matter what Alaska does someone is going to be
upset,
it is just a matter of who.
So far I believe we have made a pretty logical choice in upsetting the
people
looking for that " Rural Moon "

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]
[ Contact Forum Admin ]

Forum timezone: GMT-8
VF Version: 2.94, ConfDB:
Before posting please read our privacy policy.
VoyForums(tm) is a Free Service from Voyager Info-Systems.
Copyright © 1998-2008 Voyager Info-Systems. All Rights Reserved.