76 which includes hunting and fishing; 2) erasure of Alaska Native reservations and subsequent disputes over ownership of surface and subsurface resources; and 3) conflicting interests of regional and village corporations to be both profitable and good stewards of the land. First, ANCSA did not provide enough legal protection for the hunting and fishing needs of the Alaska Native people. Natives have differing opinions about whether the ANCs, as structured initially by ANCSA, suit the reality of life in Native villages and traditional Native cultural values. A prime example of this dissonance is the lack of legislation on subsistence rights. For example, there was no statutory protection for hunting, fishing, and gathering rights, which were vital to the subsistence lifestyle for Alaska Natives. As a result, Congress passed the Alaska National Interest Land Conservation Act (ANILCA) in 1980. ANILCA extended the original 20-year protection of undeveloped Native lands until they were ultimately developed as sources of economic activity for the local community (ANILCA, 1980). The second challenge of ANCSA is that conflicts over ownership between surface and subsurface rights emerged (Blum, 2021). Village corporations typically own surface assets of the lands. In contrast, regional corporations own subsurface assets of the lands, such as oil and other minerals. This separation is complicated by land exchange easements and land reconveyance issues for individuals, businesses, and community development purposes. The arguments over surface and subsurface rights have included issues as focused as classifying gravel, stone, sand, and other materials. Finally, there have been developments near villages for resource extraction that devolved into political gridlock due to debate between regional and village corporations. The separation of surface and subsurface rights caused disputes among village and regional corporations, leading to court decisions, such that amendments to ANCSA have been necessary to clarify these legal entanglements. The conflict clearly suggests further legal work is needed. The third shortcoming of ANCSA is the dual duty of ANCs both to be profitable and offer land conservation (Davis, 2007). This dichotomy can create a conflict of interest depending on the agenda of the board members, whether their goal is to prioritize profitability or sustainability. In addition, it can cause rifts in local communities, with some Alaska Natives preferring lower taxes and looser environmental regulation for business purposes and others favoring land conservation above economic considerations. Better mechanisms for such conflict resolution cry out to be developed. Recommendations These challenges regarding ANCSA are not insolvable. The following recommendations offer an opportunity for these issues to be addressed: 1) expansion of subsistence living rights of Alaska Natives, which include hunting and fishing; 2) deeper consideration of how Alaska Natives view land ownership; and 3) adoption of a sustainable development approach to economic growth for ANCs that takes into consideration the economic, social, and environmental needs of the community. First, Congress has the power to restore and expand tribal powers over people and territory in order to promote tribal jurisdiction, especially the protection of Alaska Native hunting and fishing rights on ANC, federal, and state lands. This was part of the motivation underlying the passage of the ANILCA in 1980. ANILCA designated 104 million acres of Alaskan lands as preservation land categorized as conservation system units. National parks and preserves, national wildlife refuges, designated wilderness areas, wild and beautiful rivers, the Iditarod National Historic Trail, the Steese National Conservation Area, and the White Mountains National Recreation Area are among the conservation units. ANILCA specifies wilderness designation, subsistence management, transportation inside and between parklands, cabin usage, mining, archaeological sites, scientific research program, and other provisions. However, this act did not go far enough to preserve Alaska Native traditional subsistence lifestyles. There are still ambiguities when it comes to the specific areas on which Alaska Natives can hunt and fish with autonomy. Greater political will is required to move forward and much more honest debate about existing federal and state regulations is needed. Despite these challenges, Congress should pass
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTA0OTQ5OA==