Here are the new briefs:
Oral argument video here.
Alaska subsistence hunting and fishing
Alaska SCT Upholds Subsistence Hunting Rules against Challenge from Conservation Group
Here is the opinion in Alaska Fish & Wildlife Conservation Fund v. State:
Alaska Fish and Wildlife Conservation Fund v State
An excerpt:
Regulations promulgated by the Alaska Board of Game establish two different systems of subsistence hunting for moose and caribou in Alaska’s Copper Basin region: (1) community hunts for groups following a hunting pattern similar to the one traditionally practiced by members of the Ahtna Tene Nene’ community; and (2) individual hunts.1 A private outdoors group, the Alaska Fish and Wildlife Conservation Fund, argues that this regulatory framework violates the equal access and equal protection clauses of the Alaska Constitution by establishing a preference for a certain user group. The Fund also argues that the regulations are not authorized by the governing statutes, that they conflict with other regulations, and that notice of important regulatory changes was not properly given to the public. But because we conclude that the Board’s factual findings support a constitutionally valid distinction between patterns of subsistence use, and because the Board’s regulations do not otherwise violate the law, we affirm the superior court’s grant of summary judgment to the State, upholding the statute and the Board regulations against the Fund’s legal challenge.
Briefs:
Two New Indian Law Articles in Alaska Law Review
Here:
Fate Control and Human Rights: The Policies and Practices of Local Governance in America’s Arctic
Mara Kimmel
PDF
The loss of territoriality over lands conveyed under the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act had adverse impacts for Alaskan tribal governance. Despite policy frameworks that emphasize the value of local governance at an international, regional, and statewide level, Alaskan tribes face unique obstacles to exercising their authority, with consequences for both human development and human rights. This Article examines how territoriality was lost and analyzes the four major effects of this loss on tribal governance. It then describes two distinct but complimentary strategies to rebuilding tribal governance authority that rely on both territorial and non-territorial authority.
Traditional Cultural Districts: An Opportunity for Alaska Tribes to Protect Subsistence Rights and Traditional Lands
Elizaveta Barrett Ristroph
PDF
Alaska tribes have limited control over their traditional lands and waters. Tribes may increase their influence through a Traditional Cultural District designation under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act. This designation does not stop development, but requires federal agencies to consult with tribes regarding potential development that may impact the district. The consultation right applies regardless of whether a tribe owns or has formally designated the district. In Alaska, where no Traditional Cultural Districts exist as of 2014, there is potential for designating large areas of land or water that correspond to the range of traditionally important species.
Supreme Court Denies Cert in Alaska v. Jewell — Alaska Subsistence Rights
Very big deal!
Cert stage briefs here:
State of Alaska Petition and Appendix
Lower court materials here.
Cert Opposition Briefs in Katie John Appeal
Here are the opposition briefs in Alaska v. Jewell:
Katie John Cert Opp [A second brief with the appendix: AFN Alaska v Jewell BIO app]
Cert petition here.
Alaska Seeks Supreme Court Review of Alaska Native Susbistence Rights under Katie John
Here is the petition in Alaska v. Jewell:
State of Alaska Petition and Appendix
Questions presented:
1. Whether the Ninth Circuit properly held—in conflict with this Court’s decisions—that the federal reserved water rights doctrine authorizes the unprecedented federal takeover of Alaska’s navigable waters sanctioned by the 1999 Rule.
2. Whether the Ninth Circuit properly proceeded on the premise—which also conflicts with this Court’s decisions—that ANILCA could be interpreted to federalize navigable waters at all given Congress’s silence on the Act’s application to navigable waters.
Lower court materials here.
Ninth Circuit Affirms Katie John Subsistence Rights Ruling
Here is the opinion.
And the court’s syllabus:
The panel affirmed the district court’s decisions upholding the 1999 Final Rules promulgated by the Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of Agriculture to implement part of the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act concerning subsistence fishing and hunting rights.
In Alaska v. Babbitt, 72 F.3d 698 (9th Cir. 1995) (“Katie John I”), the court held that, because Congress included subsistence fishing in Title VIII, the Act applied to some of Alaska’s navigable waters. The 1999 Rules identified which navigable waters within Alaska constituted “public lands” under Title VIII of the Act, which provides a priority to rural Alaska residents for subsistence hunting and fishing on such lands.
As threshold issues, the panel held that the Secretaries appropriately used notice-and-comment rulemaking, rather than adjudication, to identify whose waters are “public lands” for the purpose of determining the scope of the Act’s rural subsistence policy; and that in construing the term “public lands,” the Secretaries were entitled to “some deference.” The panel concluded that, in the 1999 Rules, the Secretaries applied Katie John I and the federal reserved water rights doctrine in a principled manner. The panel held that it was reasonable for the Secretaries to decide that: the “public lands” subject to the Act’s rural subsistence priority included the waters within and adjacent to federal reservations; and reserved water rights for Alaska Native Settlement allotments were best determined on a case-by-case basis.
Briefs are here.
Lower court materials are here.
Ninth Circuit Briefs in Katie John Subsistence Rights Appeal
Here are the materials in John v. United States:
State Amicus Brief — NM — WY — CO
Brief of Federal Appellees in John v US
Intervenors Response to Alaska
Lower court materials here.
Obama Administration to do Major Review of Alaska Subistence Rules
From the Anchorage Daily News:
The Obama administration is launching a rapid, sweeping review of the way the federal government manages subsistence hunting and fishing in Alaska, Interior Department officials said Friday.
“The system, frankly, today is broken,” Interior Secretary Ken Salazar announced in a video shown at the annual Alaska Federation of Natives convention in downtown Anchorage.
Subsistence rights — the battle over who gets the first opportunity to hunt and fish on state or federal land — is a headline issue at this year’s convention. For decades, the debate has pitted rural Alaskans and Alaska Natives, who say they hunt and fish to survive, against sports groups and urban hunters and fishermen, who argue everyone should have equal access to fish and game.
Turtle Talk 