ELECTION Prop. 1 passes in Anchorage by a landslide.

Anchorage Daily News ^ | April 3, 2002 | Elizabeth Manning

[BlueMoose]

Anchorage voters spoke loudly and clearly to the Alaska Legislature in an advisory vote at Tuesday's municipal election. Their message: Let us vote on subsistence.

[BlueMoose]

Will we be allowed to vote on subsistence or will we vote for a convention?

[Dr. Frank fan]

What's "subsistence"? (I'm assuming it's not the usual definition....)

[BlueMoose]

How about hunting and fishing.

[BlueMoose]

http://freerepublic.com/focus/news/650702/posts

For information see this URL.

[TheErnFormerlyKnownAsBig]

Here is an excerpt from the article that clears up your question.

The subsistence impasse results from a conflict between federal law and the Alaska Constitution. A 1980 federal law requires the state to recognize a rural preference for subsistence use of fish and game. The state Supreme Court, however, has ruled that the state constitution forbids such a preference. Supporters of a rural preference have tried for years to get lawmakers to put an amendment before voters to change the constitution, but key Republican state senators have blocked the move.

[browardchad]

This article is interesting: I counted 27 paragraphs, but no clear explanation of "subsistence," other than that it involves "hunting and fishing" as it relates to native populations (maybe). I hope the Alaskans at least understand what the issue is!

[Rustynailww]

http://freerepublic.com/focus/news/650702/posts">

[Dr. Frank fan]

Thanks for the info. Still sounds a bit confusing but I'll read up on it :)

[Dr. Frank fan]

Here's what I don't get (especially from only reading the excerpt you cited).

1. Federal law requires a "rural preference". 2. This seems to mean that in time of shortage, rural areas get access to game first; when there is no shortage it's not clear what effect this "preference" has, if any. 3. But Alaska's state constitution prohibits this, at least according to Alaska's supreme court. They say that by Alaska's state constitution, Alaska cannot obey this aspect of federal law.

4. So therefore the federales have taken over and now run all fish and wildlife happenings in Alaska.

Um, say what? If Alaska's constitution doesn't allow it to obey federal law, why would this increase the presence/power of the fedgov in Alaska?

Then, we now have 5. the idea to change Alaska's constitution to "bring it in line with" federal law. Why? Well, to get the feds outta there, I guess. But isn't this extortion - "change your Constitution or we take over"? Why not just kick the feds out of there? But anyway. So now the voters are 6. voting to ask for permission to advise their own state legislature to 7. put a constitutional amendment on the ballot.

An amendment which, presumably, puts in the "rural preference".

Should I support this or not? I honestly don't know.

[BlueMoose]

). I hope the Alaskans at least understand what the issue is!

We have been dicussing this for forty years. I think the issue is well known.

Just that the parties can't agree.

[VeritatisSplendor]

We have been dicussing this for forty years. I think the issue is well known.

Could you please explain it to the rest of us?

[BlueMoose]

The issue of rural preference has been an issue in Alaska since state hood.

[BlueMoose]

What is "subsistence"? State and federal law defines subsistence as the customary and traditional uses of wild resources for food, clothing, fuel, transportation, construction, art, crafts, sharing and customary trade. Subsistence uses are central to the customs and traditions of many cultural groups in Alaska, including Aleut, Athabaskan, Alutiiq, Euroamerican, Haida, Inupiat, Tlingit, Tsimshian and Yup'ik. Subsistence fishing and hunting are important sources of employment and nutrition in almost all rural communities. Most of the wild food harvested by rural families is composed of fish (about 60% by weight), along with land mammals (20%), marine mammals (14%), birds (2%), shellfish (2%) and plants (2%). Alaska still has vast areas of land occupied by Natives and others who depend upon fishing and hunting to feed themselves, their families and the elders of their villages. Federal and state laws differ in who qualifies for subsistence. Rural Alaska residents qualify under federal law. Until 1989, rural residents qualified for subsistence under state law. Since then, all state residents have qualified under state law. A source of confusion is the question, "What is rural?" The challenge before Alaskans is to get federal and state law to agree.

[WellsFargo94]

Yeah, for those who haven't lived in AK (or just to visit Fairbanks or Anchorage) most places don't have a grocery store.

[BlueMoose]

Yes> We have to cook those food stamps.

They are not very tasty without salt.

[BlueMoose]

Most Alaska Natives affected by the federal takeover of management of federal lands like the ease with which they can do as they please without interference from biologists, scientists and management specialists to regulate resources and enforce rules. Nonetheless, Anchorage voters know that all they have to do is place a racial preference in the constitution and they will get the bragging rights to fish and game subsistence management on federal lands. Now it is up to the Legislature to put a lousy amendment in our constitution and all will be well in Anchorage. Until, that is, the first racially motivated lawsuit, based on the new amendment, that affects those Anchorage residents who do not understand what is going on anyway.

WILL WE HAVE A CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION OR AN AMENDMENT?