Native Fishing Rights***1AC***4***Case Ext.***24***Status
Quo***25Squo bad26Squo bad, plan solves27Squo bad, but tribes want
the aff28Squo bad, plan solves (laundry list)29***Self
Determination Advantage***30No tribal input now31Squo talks dont
solve32Squo independently killing tribal input33Management councils
key, they craft policy34Management councils key, no intervening
actors35Tribal involvement key36Direct oversight key37Only aff
solves38Policy action k2 self-determination39Self Determination K2
solve cap40No self-determination = genocide41No self-determination
= violence42***Culture Advantage***43Cultural genocide
now44Environment k2 culture45Control of resources
key46Miseducation/Hatred I/L47Cultural genocide =
genocide48Cultural violence= Extinction49Cultural violence ->
root cause of genocide50Cultural genocide -> bare life51Genocide
first52***Biodiversity Advantage***53Bycatch Now, and bad54Bottom
Trawling Now55Councils corporate now56Plan solves environment
(mindset shift)57Arctic Research I/L58Wolves Scenario59Fish Decline
kills billions60Fish k2 economy61GMOs Scenario62Biodiversity loss=
Extinction63***Solvency***64Plan modeled65Only feds solve (plenary
power)66Only feds solve, EEZ67Only feds solve (enforcement)68Aff k2
laundry list69***A2s and Add Ons***70Identity Add On71Dont trust
their authors73Ethics k2 policy74Human Rights bad75A2: Casinos76A2:
Nuke war (Kato)77Nuke Extinction rhetoric bad77Nuke war=
Non-unique78Lol great power war79Lol extinction80A2: Native
Secession81A2: Tribes Bad82A2: K83Perm83State Good84A2:
Colonialism85Identity Politics Good86A2:
tribes/indians/natives/etc. K87Marxism Bad88A2 Cap K89Link turn89No
Link90Perm91A2: Give Back the Land92Turn: cycles of violence92Turn:
backlash93Reconciliation better94Only legal reform solves95A2:
Topicality96A2: Substantially means a number96A2: increase means
pre-existence97A2: Development98A2: Natives =/= USFG99Antiracist
Education Good100Turn, aff key to fairness and education101A2: 1NC
definition is best102Rejecting racist T violations key103Aff K of
Development1042AC K of T104Debate space key107K2 preventing
extinction1081NC Definition= root of violence109Reconstituting
meanings of development key1101NC= Bad education, real
impacts111Lol fairness112Indigenous issues key113Reconstituting
development leads to political action, real impacts1141NC= bad
policy1151NC definition= colonial116***Neg***117Other actions being
taken now118Self Determination Fails: New States Crushed119Species
loss good120No Solvency: US Laws121No Solvency: USFG Bad
(Genocide)122Nuke War first123Link to Cap K124Secession Disad125No
Movements Now, Emigration129No Movements Now, Economics130Self
Determination spills over to other indigenous groups131US support
spills over, Kosovo proves132International support= movements133US
Policy is modeled134Self Determination = War135Self Determination=
Great power war136Self determination kills democracy137Give Back
the Land139State bad/perm fails144U.S.A.= Original Sin145Land
Key146Western Civilization Bad147
***1AC***
First the status quo
Tribes have no control over their traditional fisheries
Dischner 13
Tribal consultation plays unofficial role in council process
MOLLY DISCHNER, ALASKA JOURNAL OF COMMERCE 10/17/13:
http://www.alaskajournal.com/Alaska-Journal-of-Commerce/October-Issue-3-2013/Tribal-consultation-plays-unofficial-role-in-council-process/
Historical participation weighs heavily in fisheries management
decisions, and Alaska Natives have thousands of years of history of
fishing throughout the state, relying on salmon, halibut, crab,
herring and other species for food and trade. When it comes to
management, however, the oldest users report mixed success in
participating in the decision-making process. Management decisions
for Alaskas fisheries are largely made by the North Pacific Fishery
Management Council and the state Board of Fisheries. The North
Pacific Fishery Management Council, creates fishery management
plans for federal waters, three to 200 miles offshore. The Board of
Fisheries is responsible for rivers, lakes and the ocean out to
three miles from Alaskas coast. The National Marine Fisheries
Service, or NMFS, executes the decisions made by the council, while
the Alaska Department of Fish and Game manages state waters on a
day-to-day basis based on rules passed by the board.Both structures
incorporate public testimony into their processes, which Alaska
Native tribes and organizations are entitled to participate in, but
neither offers a role beyond that. Rob Sanderson, second vice
president for Central Council of Tlingit and Haida Tribes, said
thats partially because when leaders agreed to the Alaska Native
Claims Settlement Act, the law didnt address aquatic resources.
Everyone was too worried about the land, and they forgot about the
sea, Sanderson said. In June, the North Pacific council took up
several issues that had Alaska Natives organizations weighing in,
including chinook salmon bycatch caps for Gulf of Alaska trawlers
and Pribilof and Zhemchug canyons conservation and research.
Sanderson and Alaska Inter-Tribal Councils George Pletnikoff
testified at the meeting and both said they thought the councils
action was responsive to their testimony, and to that of other
Alaska Native organizations. Pletnikoff, who also works for
Greenpeace, was part of a significant delegation asking the council
to preserve the Bering Sea canyons. The councils action, which was
to pursue an ecosystem management, was courageous he said in June
after the decision was made. Sanderson said he had heard from
others involved in the council process that his testimony on
bycatch had made a difference. At the June meeting, he called for a
lower bycatch cap, emphasizing that coastal communities in
Southeast Alaska are dependent on salmon and halibut, and cannot
afford to see those species decline. Ultimately, the council passed
a lower cap on chinook salmon bycatch than he thought they would at
the start of the meeting, Sanderson said. But as responsive as the
council can be, Sanderson would like a more formal role for Alaska
Native stakeholders. At the federal level, theres a requirement
that Tribes be consulted as part of the decision-making process. A
June opinion from the U.S. Department of Commerce, which was
released as part of a policy statement on how the bodies that
entity governs conduct tribal consultations, stated that federal
fishery management councils are not responsible for doing so. The
policy statement acknowledges that council meetings are a critical
part of fishery management, and that its most beneficial for Tribes
and groups to get involved in that level. However, it confirms that
the National Atmospheric and Oceanic Administration, or NOAA, is
ultimately responsible for working with tribes.
Thus, the plan:
The United States Congress should immediately amend the
Magnusson-Stevens Fisheries Conservation Act to clarify that Native
American tribes retain sovereignty over traditional tribal
fisheries, guarantee substantial tribal representation on the North
Pacific Fishery Management Council, mandate tribal oversight over
the National Marine Fisheries Service, and task all relevant
federal agencies with protecting tribal fisheries.
Advantage 1 is Self Determination
Recent court rulings have put tribal sovereignty on the brink,
only congressional action solves
NARF 12
THE NATIVE AMERICAN RIGHTS FUND - ANNUAL REPORT 2011: The Native
American Rights Fund (NARF) is the national Indian legal defense
fund whose primary work centers on the preservation and protection
of Indian rights and resources. NARF began its work in 1970 with a
planning grant from the Ford Foundation and through the years has
grown into a reputable and well- respected advocate of Indian
interests.http://www.narf.org/pubs/ar/NARF2012.pdf
In February 2009, the Supreme Court issued its devastating
opinion in Carcieri v. Salazar a case that involved a challenge by
the State of Rhode Island to the authority of the Secretary of the
Interior (Secretary) to take land into trust for the Narragansett
Tribe under the provisions of the Indian Reorganization Act (IRA).
For over 75 years, the Department of the Interior (Department) had
exercised its authority under the IRA to take land in trust for all
federally recognized Indian tribes and had consistently interpreted
the phrase now under Federal jurisdiction in the IRAs defini-tion
of Indian to mean the present, or the time of the exercise of the
Secretarys authority to approve the trust land acquisition. But
contrary to every federal judge who had reviewed the matter in the
courts below, and who had deferred to the Departments inter-
pretation of the IRA, eight of nine Justices on the Supreme Court
found that the term now in the phrase now under Federal
jurisdiction is unambiguous and limits the authority of the
Secretary to take land in trust only for Indian tribes that were
under Federal jurisdiction on June 4, 1934, the date the IRA was
enacted. Yet the Court failed to provide any definition of the
phrase, under Federal jurisdiction. The Courts ruling in Carcieri
is an affront to the most basic policies underlying the IRA. The
fundamental purpose of the IRA was to restore tribal homelands and
to help Indian tribestorn apart by prior federal policies of
allotment and assimilationto re-organize their governments.
Therefore, in addition to the authority to acquire lands in trust
for all tribes, the IRA also provides authority for the Secretary
to approve tribal constitutions in order to assist tribes in their
efforts towards self-determination and to establish tribal
busi-ness corporations in order to help tribes become economically
self-sufficient.In the short-term, the Carcieri decision has been
destabilizing for a significant number of Indian tribes whose
status in 1934 is uncertain. Carcieri invites expensive and
previously unnecessary litigation over the IRAs most basic terms,
allowing litigants to raise even more questions regarding the
status of those tribes. The first direct evidence of the
ripple-effect of Carcieri, and the Roberts Courts further
unraveling of Indian law, was supplied recently in the June 2012
decision in Match-E-Be-Nash- She-Wish Band of Pottawatomi Indians
(Gun Lake Tribe) v. Patchak. The Patchak litigation resulted in two
distinct holdings, both of which will have long term negative
impacts for all Indian tribes. First, the Court in Patchak trampled
over the sovereign immunity of the United States and eviscerated
the once-broad protections for Indian lands under the Quiet Title
Act. Second, through its finding of prudential standing, the Court
widened the court room doors to most any challenge by any person
who may feel harmed by a deci- sion of the Secretary made under the
authority of the IRA that benefits an Indian tribe. Only Congress
can clarify its intent for the Court. In the weeks and months after
the Courts decision in Carcieri, Indian country worked hard to get
legislation introduced in the 111th Congress to simply amend the
IRA to return to the status quoa clean Carcieri- fix to reaffirm
the authority of the Secretary of the Interior to take land in to
trust for all fed- erally-recognized Indian tribes. Although the
House passed its version of the Carcieri-fix, and the Senate
Committee for Indian Affairs reported out its legislation, neither
bill was enacted into law by the end of the session in December
2010. At the start of the 112th Congress, Indian country moved
quickly to resolve the problems being created by Carcieri. But the
Carcieri-fix legislation has stalled in the 112th Congress over a
few members concerns regarding the expansion of Indian gaming and
the exemption of Indian trust lands from local property taxes.There
are now 15 Carcieri-related challenges already pending before the
courts and the Department of the Interior. NARF has provided
testimony at several Carcieri-fix hearings before the Senate Indian
Affairs Committee. Congress needs to act and send a message to the
Supreme Court that they are not getting federal Indian legislation
right and that their rulings are just plain wrong.
The plan solves self-determination by changing congressional
intent on a key issue
Weer 14
Tribal leaders say efforts often hampered by bureaucracyApr 29,
2014 at 9:24AM By MELINDA WEER North Kitsap Herald correspondent:
http://www.northkitsapherald.com/news/257175731.html
SUQUAMISH Tribes are sovereign, or self-governing, nations. But
federal and state bureaucracies often slow or inhibit their ability
to respond to needs on their lands, Tribal leaders told federal
officials at a Tribal Summit at the Suquamish Tribes House of
Awakened Culture, April 24. Billy Frank Jr., chairman of the
Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission, said the commission has not
received a response from the White House three years after the
commission presented a white paper offering solutions to salmon
habitat degradation. And thats putting treaty rights at risk
(http://treatyrightsatrisk.org/). We ceded land to the U.S. under
treaties. The U.S. needs to recognize those treaties, he said. Our
people depend on the natural resources. We need to restore the
habitat that has been destroyed. Dont put us in these processes
that take years and years. We cant wait. He added, Our hatcheries
are under attack by lawsuits by NOAA [but] our hatcheries are there
because the habitat is gone. Big business is saying it costs too
much to have clean water. Our salmon, animals, eagles need clean
water. We cannot allow that poison to take over our country. The
summit was sponsored by Rep. Derek Kilmer, D-Bremerton. Summit
participants included Interior Secretary Sally Jewell; Brian
Cladoosby, Swinomish Tribe chairman and president of the National
Congress of American Indians; and representatives of the Hoh Tribe,
Jamestown SKlallam Tribe, Lower Elwha Klallam Tribe, Port Gamble
SKlallam Tribe, Makah Nation, Quinault Nation, Quileute Tribe,
Skokomish Tribe, and Suquamish Tribe. Also participating: Larry
Roberts, deputy assistant secretary for Indian Affairs; and Stanley
Speaks, Northwest regional director of the Bureau of Indian
Affairs. Suquamish Chairman Leonard Forsman took Jewell on a short
walking tour, visiting fishermen on a Suquamish Seafood boat and
paying respects at Chief Seattles grave. Cladoosby started off the
summit with a panel discussion on Tribal sovereignty and
self-determination. Tribes govern themselves and their [lands and
people]. You dont need to tell us what is good for us, he told
federal officials. But sovereignty is not well-understood by many
federal and state lawmakers. Jamestown SKlallam Vice Chairwoman Liz
Mueller said she spends a lot of time educating lawmakers on the
subject that Tribes have independent authority with the power to
govern their lands and people, an authority they never relinquished
when they signed treaties with the U.S. Indeed, their sovereignty
empowered them to sign treaties with the U.S. According to
Skokomish Vice Chairman Joe Pavel, We have a unique relationship
with the United States. We would still be sovereign without that
relationship. We are not artifacts. We are alive and we are still
growing. Makah Chairman T.J. Greene said many Americans dont
understand the relationship between the U.S. and Tribes. When the
Tribes ceded their land, the benefits that we now receive were paid
for, he said. The land was ceded so the U.S. could have clear title
in order to divide the country into states. The U.S. governments
responsibility to honor its treaty obligations hasnt changed, he
said. Tribal leaders said one of those obligations is funding.
Tribes have been underfunded for generations, said Frances Charles,
chairwoman of the Lower Elwha Klallam Tribe. We have limited
resources to protect our elders, [and for] education, culture and
resources. We know what the issues are; what we lack are the
dollars. Pavel added, Somebody else [outside the Tribe] has already
decided what our priorities are and thats where the money goes. One
priority has been jails, but we need to get out ahead of that so
our people dont need those. Our priorities are our spiritual and
cultural values, our physical and emotional health, our resources.
Leaders also expressed concern about response to issues such as
climate change; the Tribes at the summit are all coastal. Tribal
communities are among the most vulnerable to climate change because
of their place-based nature and connection to the environment,
Quinault natural resources adviser Gary Morishima said. Tribes are
in the best position to detect changes and determine in their own
community how to remedy those changes. He added, The major obstacle
in climate change initiatives is fragmentation of responsibility in
the government agencies. In order to maintain functional ecologic
conditions across the landscape, someone needs to be in charge.
Instead, we are tied to communications composed of tweets, bullets
and teaspoons. Tribes need the ability to sort truth from fiction.
The information needs to be relevant to decisions they are making.
Tribes need to be involved in national and international policy
decisions regarding climate change. The Tribes have a holistic view
of environmental issues. We are an oceangoing nation, Greene said
of the Makahs. We are spiritually connected to the ocean. Seventy
percent of our economy, our songs, dance and culture connects
us.
And, Self-determination is key to checking systems of
colonialism that will lead to extinction
Churchill 96
Ward Churchill, Creek Cherokee, member of the Governing Council
of the Colorado chapter of the AIM, From a Native Son: Selected
Essay on Indigenism, 1985-1995, 1996, p. 181-182
The struggle currently shouldered by AIM and related native
organizations is not merely for Indians. It is for everyone. To
resolve the issue of the colonization of the American Indian would
be, at least in part, to resolve matters threatening to the whole
of humanity. In altering the relations of internal colonialism in
North America, the AIM idea would vastly reduce the capability of
the major nations there to extend their imperial web into Central
and South America, as well as Africa, Asia, and the Pacific Basin.
In denying access to the sources of uranium to the industrial
powers, American Indians could take a quantum leap toward solving
the problem of nuclear proliferation. In denying access to certain
other resources, they could do much to force conversion to
renewable, nonpolluting alternative energy sources such as solar
and wind power. The list could be extended at length. Ultimately,
the Lagunas, the Shiprocks, Churchrocks, Tuba Cities, Edgemonts,
and Pine Ridges which litter the American landscape are not
primarily a moral concern for non-Indian movements (although they
should be that, as well). Rather, they are pragmatic examples,
precursors of situations and conditions which, within the
not-so-distant future, will engulf other population sectors; which,
from place to place, have already begun to actively encroach in a
more limited fashion. Circumstance has made the American Indian the
first to bear the full brunt of the new colonialism in North
America. The only appropriate response is to see to it that they
are also the last. The new colonialism knows no limits. Expendable
populations will be expended. National sacrifice areas will be
sacrificed. New populations and new areas will then be targeted,
expended, and sacrificed. There is no sanctuary. The new
colonialism is radioactive; what it does can never be undone. Left
to its own dynamics, to run its course, it will spread across the
planet like the literal cancer it is. It can never be someone elses
problem; regardless of its immediate location at the moment, it has
become the problem and peril of everyone alive, and who will be
alive. The place to end it is where it has now taken root and
disclosed its inner nature. The time to end it is now
And, native self determination creates a sustainable global
model
Jorgensen 97
Miriam Jorgensen, Research Associate for the Harvard Project on
American Indian Economic Development and consultant to the Standing
Rock Sioux and White Mountain Apache Tribes, 1997, American Indian
Studies, p. 137
In particular, the challenge for American Indian economic
development is for it to be indigenously defined and
institutionally based. As such, development will be a process which
takes account of Native assets and goals and incorporates them into
specific plans for the future. It will be capable of addressing
welfare issues generally, and not income issues alone. Because it
concentrates on institutional development, it will not put limited
projects ahead of broader policy-making. It will create a
political-economic environment which is conducive to investment by
tribal members and non- members alike. Furthermore, its political
and social institutions will together promote the continued success
of these designated welfare- improving investments. Clearly,
development that succeeds at combating poverty and its concomitant
ills is not narrowly "economic." Finally, if Native nations achieve
this kind of development, their success will be a beacon not only
to other indigenous peoples whose colonizers allow a measure of
political independence, but to all nations which are restructuring
their development outlook. American Indian nations have the
potential to show other countriesfrom Eastern Europe to Asia and
beyond -how development can be done "right."
A sustainable self-determination model is key to preventing
nuclear war
Shehadi 93
Kamal Shehadi, December 1993. Research Associate at the
International Institute for Strategic Studies. Ethnic Self
Determination And the Break Up of States, p. 81.
This paper has argued that self-determination conflicts have
direct adverse consequences on international security. As they
begin to tear nuclear states apart, the likelihood of nuclear
weapons falling into the hands of individuals or groups willing to
use them, or to trade them to others, will reach frightening
levels. This likelihood increases if a conflict over
self-determination escalates into a war between two nuclear states.
The Russian Federation and Ukraine may fight over the Crimea and
the Donbass area; and India and Pakistan may fight over Kashmir.
Ethnic conflicts may also spread both within a state and from one
state to the next. This can happen in countries where more than one
ethnic self-determination conflict is brewing: Russia, India and
Ethiopia, for example. The conflict may also spread by contagion
from one country to another if the state is weak politically and
militarily and cannot contain the conflict on its doorstep. Lastly,
there is a real danger that regional conflicts will erupt over
national minorities and borders.
Advantage 2 is Cultural Genocide
The status quo perpetuates an ongoing cultural genocide by not
recognizing tribal rights to fisheries
NARF 11
THE NATIVE AMERICAN RIGHTS FUND - ANNUAL REPORT 2011: The Native
American Rights Fund (NARF) is the national Indian legal defense
fund whose primary work centers on the preservation and protection
of Indian rights and resources. NARF began its work in 1970 with a
planning grant from the Ford Foundation and through the years has
grown into a reputable and well- respected advocate of Indian
interests.
http://nativewaysfederation.org/sites/default/files/annual_reports/NARF_2011.pdf
Protection of Hunting and Fishing Rights in Alaska The
subsistence way of life is essential for the physical and cultural
survival of Alaska Natives. As important as Native hunting and
fishing rights are to Alaska Natives' physical, economic,
traditional and cultural existence, the State of Alaska has been
and continues to be reluctant to recognize the importance of the
subsistence way of life. On January 5, 2005, the State of Alaska
filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Columbia challenging the final rule mplementing the mandate in a
prior Alaska Native subsistence case, John v. United States. The
prior case, in which NARF represented Katie John, an Alaska Native,
established that the United States must protect subsistence uses of
fisheries in navigable waters where the United States possesses a
reserved water right. In this new lawsuit, the State challenges the
Federal agencies implementation of the mandate by arguing that the
reserved waters doctrine requires a quantification of waters
necessary to fulfill specific purposes. Katie John immediately
filed a motion for limited intervention for purposes of filing a
motion to dismiss for failure to join an indispensable party. The
United States filed a motion to transfer venue to the U.S. District
Court for the District of Alaska in February 2005. Judge Collyer
entered an Order in July 2005, trans- ferring the case to the
federal court in Alaska. The case was then consolidated with John
v. Norton (below).The issues in the two cases were bifurcated for
briefing with the States claims addressed first. In May 2007, the
district court entered an Order upholding the agencies rule-making
process identifying navigable waters in Alaska that fall within
federal jurisdiction for purposes of Title VIIIs subsistence
priority. In January 2005, Katie John, represented by NARF, filed a
lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Alaska
challenging the Federal Agencies Secretaries final rule imple-
menting the prior Katie John mandate as being too restrictive in
its scope. Katie Johns com- plaint alleges that the Federal
agencies should have included Alaska Native allotments as public
lands and further that the federal governments interest in water
extends upstream and downstream from the Conservation Units
established under the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation
Act. The State of Alaska intervened and challenged the regulations
as illegally extending federal jurisdiction to state waters. On
September 9, 2009, the Court entered an order upholding the
agencies final rule as reasonable. While rejecting Katie Johns
claim that the agency had a duty to identify all of its federally
reserved water rights in upstream and downstream waters, the court
stated that the agency could do so at some future time if necessary
to fulfill the purposes of the reserve. The case was appealed to
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit and has been fully
briefed. Argument took place in July 2011 and we are now waiting
decision by the Court.In Native Villages of Eyak, Tatitlek,
Chenega, Nanwalek, and Port Graham v. Evans, NARF represents five
Chugach villages that sued the Secretary of Commerce to establish
aboriginal rights to their traditional-use areas on the Outer
Continental Shelf of Alaska, in Cook Inlet and the Gulf of Alaska.
In September 2002, the federal district court ruled against the
Chugach. NARF appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit, and in July 2004, the Ninth Circuit en banc panel vacated
the decision of the district court and remanded for determination
of whether the Tribes can establish aboriginal rights to the areas.
In September 2004, the district court denied previous summary
judgment motions as moot and ordered that new motions for summary
judgment be submitted by December 2004. The Chugach chose not to
file a Motion for Summary Judgment given the remaining fact
disputes, but the government did submit one in December 2004. After
gathering updated evidence, the Chugach filed their Opposition in
June 2005. Oral argument on the motion for summary judgment was
held in November 2006, and summary judgment was denied shortly
thereafter in December 2006.Trial on whether these Tribes hold
aboriginal rights to hunt and fish in federal waters was held in
the second half of August 2008. In August 2009, the federal court
held that although the five Chugach Tribes had established that
they had a territory and had proven they had used the waters in
question, that the Tribes could not hold aboriginal rights as a
matter of law. The Chugach have appealed to the Ninth Circuit en
banc panel which has retained jurisdiction over this case and
briefing was completed in April 2010. Oral argument was held in
front of the en banc panel in San Francisco on September 21, 2011,
and we are awaiting a decision.
And, the plan is key to protect subsistence fishing culture
AFN 11
Alaska Federation of Natives: 2011 Federal Priorites. AFN is the
largest statewide Native organization in Alaska. Its membership
includes 178 villages (both federally recognized tribes and village
corporations), 13 regional Native corporations and 12 regional
nonprofit and tribal consortia that contract and run federal and
state programs. AFN is governed by a 37-member board of directors,
which is elected by its membership at the annual convention held
each October. The Alaska Federation of Natives was formed in
October 1966, when more than 400 Alaska Natives representing 17
Native organizations, gathered for a three-day conference to
address Alaska Native aboriginal land rights.:
http://www.nativefederation.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/2011-afn-federal-priorities.pdf
Federal laws protecting Native American and Alaska Native
hunting, fishing and gathering rights apply throughout the United
States, but nowhere are they more critical than in Alaska, where
hunting, fishing and gathering remain economic necessities.
Subsistence resources constitute a substantial majority of the
nutritional needs of Alaskas Native people, especially in rural
areas where the need for subsistence resources for daily
nutritional, spiritual and cultural sustenance is the greatest. The
indigenous peoples of Alaska have a basic human right to their
subsistence way of life and to maintain their cultural beliefs and
practices rights acknowledged in the United Nations Declaration on
the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. Federal Protections for
Subsistence The U.S. Government has a trust responsibility to
Alaska Natives to honor the commitment it made to them in the
Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act of 1971 (ANCSA) and in Title
VIII of the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980
(ANILCA). That commitment was to establish and implement a
comprehensive federal program that would protect their way of life.
Fulfilling this commitment is central to the survival of this and
future generations of Alaska Natives. When Congress enacted Title
VIII of ANILCA, it envisioned state implementation of a federal
priority for subsistence uses on all lands and waters in Alaska
through a state law implementing a rural priority. That cooperative
federalism program operated for a mere seven years before the
Alaska Supreme Court ruled in 1989 that the State Constitution
precluded the States participation. Ironically, the State had
insisted on a rural rather than Native subsistence preference in
ANILCA. Since 1989, all efforts to amend the State Constitution to
comply with ANILCAs rural priority, and thus to have a unified
subsistence management regime, have failed. Over the last decade,
the State of Alaska, anti-subsistence groups and the previous
Administration aggressively and successfully took actions to
subvert federal law and polices. At the same time, state
subsistence laws were virtually gutted, leaving those who once
depended on Native-owned or state lands to fulfill their
subsistence needs without meaningful protections. The erosion of
federal protections led to the recently completed Secretarial
Review of the federal subsistence management program.
Unfortunately, the results of the secretarial review are
inadequate. The proposed changes to the federal management program
do not address the fundamental problems with existing law. The
checkerboard system of protection was not what Congress envisioned
when it enacted Title VIII, and it is not working to protect the
subsistence way of life of Alaska Natives. Congress recognized that
the continuation of the opportunity for subsistence uses...is
essential to Native physical, economic, traditional and cultural
existence. Rather than defending and maintaining a system that no
longer serves its intended purposes, AFN believes it is imperative
that the federal government once again act to safeguard our
villages essential food resources and traditional way of life.
Without adequate subsistence resources, most villages will not be
able to feed themselves and will slowly disappear through
out-migration. The cost of the resulting economic collapse and
social dislocation would fall on every AlaskanNative and
non-Native, urban and ruraland state and federal agencies.
Government has a vested interest in ensuring that the villages
remain able to sustain themselves, rather than becoming more
dependent on welfare.
And, the aff spotlights the key internal link of native
culture
NARF 11
THE NATIVE AMERICAN RIGHTS FUND - ANNUAL REPORT 2011: The Native
American Rights Fund (NARF) is the national Indian legal defense
fund whose primary work centers on the preservation and protection
of Indian rights and resources. NARF began its work in 1970 with a
planning grant from the Ford Foundation and through the years has
grown into a reputable and well- respected advocate of Indian
interests.
http://nativewaysfederation.org/sites/default/files/annual_reports/NARF_2011.pdf
The culture and way of life of many indigenous peoples are
inextricably tied to their aboriginal habitat. For those tribes
that still maintain traditional ties to the natural world, suitable
habitat is required in order to exercise their treaty-protected
hunting, fishing, gathering and trapping rights and to sustain
their relationships with the animals, plants and fish that comprise
their aboriginal habitats. Establishing tribal rights to the use of
water in the arid west continues to be a major NARF priority. The
goal of NARF's Indian water rights work is to secure allocations of
water for present and future needs for Indian tribes rep- resented
by NARF and other western tribes generally. Under the precedent
established by the Supreme Court in 1908 in Winters v. United
States and confirmed in 1963 in Arizona v. California, Indian
tribes are entitled under fed- eral law to sufficient water for
present and future needs, with a priority date at least as early as
the establishment of their reservations. These tribal reserved
water rights are superior to all state-recognized water rights
created after the tribal priority date. Such a date will in most
cases give tribes valuable senior water rights in the water-short
west. Unfortunately, many tribes have not utilized their reserved
water rights, and most of these rights are unadjudicated or
unquantified. The major need in each case is to define or quantify
the amount of water to which each tribe is entitled through
litigation or out-of-court negotiated settlements. Tribes are
generally able to claim water for any purpose which enables the
tribe's reservation to serve as a permanent homeland
And, the plan is modeled and spills over globally, American
policy towards natives is key to worldwide protection for
indigenous peoples
Morris 92Glenn, The State of Native America: Genocide,
Colonization, and Resistance, ed. M. Annette Jaimes, p. 55-57)
Only in the past fifty years, or the past thirty for over a
third of the states of the world, has self-determination been
realized through the recognition that colonialism is abhorrent to
the desired liberty of humankind. Through the acceptance of the UN.
charter and other human-rights instruments, self-determination of
peoples is a universally accepted aspiration. Unfortunately,
thousands of the world's peoples have yet to realize that
aspiration. Indigenous peoples from Burma to Brazil, from the
Arctic to Australia, continue to be denied the right to control
their affairs in any effective and meaningful manner. In many of
these countries, such as Guatemala, Bolivia, Greenland, and
Ecuador, indigenous peoples comprise a majority of the total state
population; yet, they often remain disenfranchised and subordinated
by the descendants of the original settler or colonizing classes.
Despite recent and tentative advances in the recognition of the
rights of indigenous peoples in such places as Nicaragua,
Greenland, and Panama, and despite some progress in certain
international forums, the overwhelming majority of indigenous
peoples are forced to struggle for their very existence against the
enormous pressure of encroaching states surrounding them. Through
the application of international legal and political norms, many
peoples under colonial domination have achieved some level of
political self-determination. Many representatives of indigenous
peoples and nations point to the example of the decolonization of
southern Africa as an example to be emulated in the case of
indigenous peoples elsewhere. Just as principles of
self-determination have been applied to liberate the peoples of
Zimbabwe or Namibia, where the idea of Black majority rule is
accepted without question, so, too, should such principles apply to
all indigenous peoples. This essay is devoted to the examination of
why such principles have not been applied to indigenous peoples and
how the operation of European and American legal doctrines has been
used to maintain their colonial condition. One particular paradox
in this examination will be the recognition that even by their own
legal standards, the Euroamerican colonization of the Western
hemisphere (and, by extension, other indigenous peoples' lands
across the globe) was unjustified.More important, the purpose here
is to indicate that through the application of contemporary
principles of international law, particularly in the area of
decolonization and self-determination, indigenous peoples must
ultimately be entitled to decide for themselves the dimensions of
their political, economic, cultural, and social conditions. It must
be emphasized that the construction of this position is not based
in the supposition that because indigenous peoples constitute
ethnic or cultural minorities in larger societies they must be
protected due to that status. Rather, the position is that since
Europeans first wandered into the Western hemisphere they have
acknowledged the unique status of indigenous peoples qua indigenous
peoples. That status is only now being reacknowledged through the
application of evolving principles of positive and customary
international law. While such assertions may seem novel and
untenable at present, it should be recalled that just forty years
ago, tens of millions of people languished under the rule of
colonial domination; today, they are politically independent.
Central to their independence was the development and acceptance of
the right to self-determination under international law. Despite
such developments, many colonized peoples were forced by desperate
conditions to engage in armed struggle to advance their legitimate
aspirations. Similarly, for many indigenous peoples few viable
options remain in their quest for control of their destinies.
Consequently, a majority of the current armed conflicts in the
world are not between established states, but between indigenous
peoples and states that seek their subordination. Armed struggle
for most indigenous peoples represents a desperate and untenable
strategy for their survival. Nonetheless, it may remain an
unavoidable option for many of them, because if their petitions
seeking recognition of their rights in international forums are
ignored, many indigenous peoples, quite literally, face
extermination. Although this chapter has implications for the
status of all indigenous peoples, its concentration is primarily
within the United States. This is because, in several ways, the
status of indigenous nations within the U.S. is unique, and the
policy of the United States toward indigenous nations has
frequently been emulated by other states. The fact that a treaty
relationship exists between the United States and indigenous
nations, and the fact that indigenous nations within the U.S.
retain defined and separate land bases and continue to exercise
some degree of effective self-government, may contribute to the
successful application of international standards in their cases.
Also, given the size and relative power of the United States in
international relations, and absent the unlikely independence of a
majority-indigenous nation-state such as Guatemala or Greenland,
the successful application of decolonization principles to
indigenous nations within the U.S. could allow the extension of
such applications to indigenous peoples in other parts of the
planet.
And, Survival of Native culture solves human extinction, its key
to every other impact
Weatherford 94Jack, Anthropologist, Savages and Civilization:
Who Will Survive?, pp. 287-291)
Today we have no local and regional civilizations. The world now
stands united in a single, global civilization. Collapse in one
part could trigger a chain reaction that may well sweep away cities
across the globe. Will the fate of Yaxchiln be the fate of all
cities, of all civilization? Are they doomed to rise, flourish, and
then fall back into the earth from which they came? Whether we take
an optimistic view or a pessimistic one, it seems clear that we
stand now at the conclusion of a great age of human history. This
ten-thousand-year episode seems to be coming to an end, winding
down. For now, it appears that civilization has won out over all
other ways of life. Civilized people have defeated the tribal
people of the world who have been killed or scattered. But just at
the moment when victory seems in the air for civilization, just at
the moment when it has defeated all external foes and made itself
master of the world, without any competing system to rival it,
civilization seems to be in worse danger than ever before. No
longer in fear of enemies from outside, civilization seems more
vulnerable than ever to enemies from within. It has become a victim
of its own success. In its quest for dominance, civilization chewed
up the forest, leeched the soil, stripped the plains, clogged the
rivers, mined the mountains, polluted the oceans, and fouled the
air. In the process of progress, civilization destroyed one species
of plant and animal after another. Propelled by the gospel of
agriculture, civilization moved forcefully across the globe, but it
soon began to die of exhaustion, leaving millions of humans to
starve. Some of the oldest places in the agricultural world became
some of the first to collapse. Just as it seems to have completed
its victory over tribal people, the nation-state has begun to
dissolve. Breaking apart into ethnic chunks and cultural enclaves,
the number of states has multiplied in the twentieth century to the
point that the concept of a nation-state itself starts to
deteriorate. The nation-state absorbed the remaining tribal people
but has proven incapable of incorporating them fully into the
national society as equal members. The state swallowed them up but
could not digest them. The state could destroy the old languages
and cultures, and it easily divided and even relocated whole
nations. But the state proved far less effective at incorporating
the detribalized people into the new national culture. Even though
the state expanded across the frontier, it could not make the
frontier disappear. The frontier moved into the urban areas with
the detribalized masses of defeated nations, emancipated slaves,
and exploited laborers. After ten thousand years of struggle,
humans may have been left with a Pyrrhic victory whose cost may be
much greater than its benefits. Now that the victory has been won,
we stoop under the burdensome costs and damages to a world that we
may not be able to heal or repair. Unable to cope with the rapidly
changing natural, social, and cultural environment that
civilization made, we see the collapse of the social institutions
of the city and the state that brought us this far. The cities and
institutions of civilization have now become social dinosaurs. Even
though we may look back with pride over the last ten thousand years
of evolution and cite the massive number of humans and the ability
of human society and the city to feed and care for all of them, one
major fluctuation in the world might easily end all of that. The
civilization we have built stretches like a delicate and fragile
membrane on this Earth. It will not require anything as dramatic as
a collision with a giant asteroid to destroy civilization.
Civilization seems perfectly capable of creating its own
Armageddon. During the twentieth century, civilization experience a
number of major scares, a series of warning shots. Civilization
proved capable of waging world war on itself. Toward that end, we
developed nuclear energy and came close to provoking a nuclear
holocaust, and we may well do so yet. When we survived World War I,
then World War II, and finally the nuclear threat of the Cold War,
we felt safe. When catastrophe did not follow the warning, we felt
relief, as though the danger had passed, but danger still
approaches us. Civilization experienced several super plagues
ranging from the devastating world influenza epidemic early in the
century to AIDS at the close of the century. These may be only weak
harbingers of the epidemics and plagues to come. Even as life
expectancy in most countries has continued to climb throughout the
twentieth century, diseases from cancer to syphilis have grown
stronger and more deadly. If war or new plagues do not bring down
civilization, it might easily collapse as a result of environmental
degradation and the disruption of productive agricultural lands. If
the great collapse comes, it might well come from something that we
do not yet suspect. Perhaps war, disease, famine, and environmental
degradation will be only parts of the process and not the causes.
Today all of us are unquestionably part of a global society, but
that common membership does not produce cultural uniformity around
the globe. The challenge now facing us is to live in harmony
without living in uniformity, to be united by some forces such as
worldwide commerce, pop culture, and communications, but to remain
peacefully different in other areas such as religion and ethnicity.
We need to share some values such as a commitment to fundamental
human rights and basic rules of interaction, but we can be wildly
different in other areas such as life-styles, spirituality, musical
tastes, and community life. We need to find a way for all of us to
walk in two worlds at once, to be part of the world culture,
without sacrificing the cultural heritage of our own families and
traditions. At the same time we need to find ways to allow other
people to walk in two worlds, or perhaps even to walk in four or
five worlds at once. We cannot go backwards in history and change
one hour or one moment, but we do have the power to change the
present and thus alter the future. The first step in that process
should come by respecting the mutual right of all people to survive
with dignity and to control their own destinies without
surrendering their cultures. The aborigines of Australia, the
Tibetans of China, the Lacandon of Mexico, the Tuareg of Mali, the
Aleuts of Alaska, the Ainu of Japan, the Maori of New Zealand, the
Aymara of Bolivia, and the millions of other ethnic groups around
the world deserve the same human rights and cultural dignity as
suburbanites in Los Angeles, bureaucrats in London, bankers in
Paris, reporters in Atlanta, marketing executives in Vancouver,
artists in Berlin, surfers in Sydney, or industrialists in Tokyo.
In recent centuries, Western civilization has played the leading
role on the stage of human history. We should not mistake this one
act for the whole drama of human history, nor should we assume that
the present act is the final one just because it is before us at
the moment. Much came before us, and much remains yet to be
enacted. We must recognize the value of all people not merely out
of nostalgic sentiment for the oppressed or merely to keep them
like exhibits in a nature park. We must recognize their rights and
value because we may need the combined knowledge of all cultures if
we are to overcome the problems that now threaten to overwhelm us.
At first glance, the Aleuts who hunt seals on isolated islands in
the Bering Sea may seem like unimportant actors on the world stage
of today, but their ancestors once played a vital role in human
survival of the Ice Age. The Quechua woman sitting in the dusty
market of Cochamba may seem backward and insignificant, but her
ancestors led the way into an agricultural revolution from which we
still benefit. Because we do not know the problems that lie ahead
of us, we do not know which set of human skills or which cultural
perspective we will need. The coming age of human history threatens
to be one of cultural conflicts between and within countries,
conflicts that rip cities apart. If we continue down the same path
that we now tread, the problems visible today in Tibet or Mexico
may seem trifling compared with the conflicts yet to come. If we
cannot change our course, then our civilization too may become as
dead as the stones of Yaxchiln, and one day the descendants of some
alien civilization will stare at our ruined cities and wonder why
we disappeared.
And, taking a stand against genocide outweighs everything
Harrf and Gur, 81
(Harff and Gur, Northwestern, HUMANITARIAN INTERVENTION AS A
REMEDY FOR GENOCIDE, 1981, p. 40)
One of the most enduring and abhorrent problems of the world is
genocide, which is neither particular to a specific race, class, or
nation, nor is it rooted in any one, ethnocentric view of the
world. Prohibition of genocide and affirmation of its opposite,the
value of life, are an eternal ethical verity, one whose practical
implications necessarily outweigh possible theoretical objections
and as such should lift it above prevailing ideologies or politics.
Genocide concerns and potentially effects all people. People make
up a legal system, according to Kelsen. Politics is the expression
of conflict among competing groups. Those in power give the
political system its character, i.e. the state. The state,
according to Kelsen, is nothing but the combined will of all its
people. This abstract concept of the state may at first glance
appear meaningless, because in reality not all people have an equal
voice in the formation of the characteristics of the state. But I
am not concerned with the characteristics of the state but rather
the essence of the state the people. Without a people there would
be no state or legal system. With genocide eventually there will be
no people. Genocide is ultimately a threat to the existence of all.
True, sometimes only certain groups are targeted, as in Nazi
Germany. Sometimes a large part of the total population is
eradicated, as in contemporary Cambodia. Sometimes people are
eliminated regardless of national origin the Christians in Roman
times. Sometimes whole nations vanish the Amerindian societies
after the Spanish conquest. And sometimes religious groups are
persecuted the Mohammedans by the Crusaders. The culprit changes:
sometimes it is a specific state, or those in power in a state;
occasionally it is the winners vs. the vanquished in international
conflicts; and in its crudest form the stronger against the weaker.
Since virtually every social group is a potential victim, genocide
is a universal concern.
Advantage 3 is the Biodiversity
Federal councils are allowing commercial fishing to destroy the
unique North Bering biome, threatening multiple keystone
species
NARF 11
THE NATIVE AMERICAN RIGHTS FUND - ANNUAL REPORT 2011: The Native
American Rights Fund (NARF) is the national Indian legal defense
fund whose primary work centers on the preservation and protection
of Indian rights and resources. NARF began its work in 1970 with a
planning grant from the Ford Foundation and through the years has
grown into a reputable and well- respected advocate of Indian
interests.
http://nativewaysfederation.org/sites/default/files/annual_reports/NARF_2011.pdf
As ocean temperatures rise due to climate change, marine mammals
and fish are moving north. Commercially valuable fish that have
traditionally been in the Gulf of Alaska are shifting toward the
Northern Bering Sea, and the large-scale fishing fleets are
planning to follow them and expand their operations into this
highly sensitive ecosystem. This fleet employs bottom trawling, a
highly destructive practice in which weighted nets are dragged
inches above the sea floor, removing every- thing in their path.
Nevertheless, the North Pacific Fishery Management Council (NPFMC)
currently allows bottom trawling in the Central Bering Sea, and it
is having a profound effect on sensitive habitat and local Yupik
communities. In addition, the NPFMC has begun a process to consider
whether to allow these fleets to expand into the Northern Bering
Sea, home to threatened species like the walrus, endangered species
such as the Steller sea lion and the spectacled eider, and many
isolated Yupik and Inupiaq villages who have been the stewards of
this diverse ecosystem for centuries. The Bering Sea Elders Group
is an alliance of thirty-nine Yupik and Inupiaq villages that seeks
to protect the sensitive ecosystem of the Bering Sea, the
subsistence lifestyle and the sustainable communities that depend
on it. NARF has designed a comprehensive plan to help this group of
Alaska Native villages in their efforts to protect the area and
become more engaged in its management. Over the last year, NARF has
been working with the Elders Group on both issues, and we have: (1)
researched potential aboriginal rights that the Elders Group and
its constituent tribes may possess based on their long-term
exclusive use and occupancy of the area, (2) prepared the Elders
Group for negotiations with the trawl fishermen, and (3) assisted
the Elders Group with its participation in the NPFMC
process.Climate Change Project Global warming is wreaking havoc in
Alaska. In recent years scientists have documented melting ocean
ice, rising oceans, rising river temperatures, thawing permafrost,
increased insect infestations, animals at risk and dying forests.
Alaska Natives are the peoples who rely most on Alaska's ice, seas,
marine mammals, fish and game for nutrition and customary and
traditional subsistence uses; they are thus experiencing the
adverse impacts of global warming most acutely. In 2006, during the
Alaska Forum on the Environment, Alaska Native participants
described increased forest fires,more dangerous hunting, fishing
and traveling conditions, visible changes in animals and plants,
infrastructure damage from melting permafrost and coastal erosion,
fiercer winter storms, and pervasive unpredictability. Virtually
every aspect of traditional Alaska Native life is impacted. As
noted in the Arctic Climate Impact Assessment of 2004, indigenous
peoples are reporting that sea ice is declining, and its quality
and timing are changing, with important negative repercus- sions
for marine hunters. Others are reporting that salmon are diseased
and cannot be dried for winter food. There is widespread concern
about caribou habitat diminishing as larger vegetation moves
northward. Because of these and other dramatic changes, traditional
knowledge is jeopardized, as are cultural structures and the
nutritional needs of Alaska's indigenous peoples. Efforts are
continuing to convene Congressional hearings on climate change
impacts on indigenous peoples. In Native Village of Kivalina v.
Exxon Mobil, NARF represents the Native Village of Kivalina, which
is a federally recognized Indian Tribe, and the City of Kivalina,
which is an Alaskan municipality, in a suit filed on their own
behalf and on behalf of all tribal members against defendants
ExxonMobil Corp., Peabody Energy Corp., Southern Company, American
Electric Power Co., Duke Energy Co, Chevron Corp. and Shell Oil
Co., among others. In total there are nine oil company defendants,
four- teen electric power company defendants and one coal company
defendant. The suit claims damages due to the defendant companies'
contributions to global warming and invokes the federal common law
of public nuisance. The suit also alleges a conspiracy by some
defendants to mislead the public regarding the causes and
consequences of global warming
And, only the aff can stop biodiversity loss in the Bering
Sea
AFN 11
Alaska Federation of Natives: 2011 Federal Priorites. AFN is the
largest statewide Native organization in Alaska. Its membership
includes 178 villages (both federally recognized tribes and village
corporations), 13 regional Native corporations and 12 regional
nonprofit and tribal consortia that contract and run federal and
state programs. AFN is governed by a 37-member board of directors,
which is elected by its membership at the annual convention held
each October. The Alaska Federation of Natives was formed in
October 1966, when more than 400 Alaska Natives representing 17
Native organizations, gathered for a three-day conference to
address Alaska Native aboriginal land rights.:
http://www.nativefederation.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/2011-afn-federal-priorities.pdf
AFN recommends that the Magnuson-Stevens be amended to establish
at least one voting seat for a tribal representative on NPFMC.
Tribes are represented on another Magnuson Management Council. The
Pacific Fisheries Management Council has jurisdiction over all
marine waters along the U.S. Pacific Coast south of Alaska. It has
14 voting members from the states of Washington, Oregon, California
and Idaho. One voting member is appointed from an Indian tribe with
federally recognized fishing rights in one of the member states.
Tribes submit nominations for the voting seat to the Secretary of
Commerce. A similar process should be mandated and implemented for
the NPFMC. The North Pacific Fisheries Management Council (NPFMC)
is one of the regional management bodies established under the
Magnuson-Stevens Act. The Council has jurisdiction over federal
fisheries, and many of its decisions directly impact the
subsistence resources that Alaska Natives depend upon for their
subsistence way of life. The Council is composed of 11 voting
members, and many of these seats are occupied by the fishing
industry. Alaska Tribes and subsistence users are not represented
on the Council. This overwhelming imbalance of power has resulted
in decisions that greatly favor industry and fail to protect
subsistence resources and opportunity. For example, the Council
recently voted to allow the Bering Sea pollock trawl fishery to
waste as bycatch as many as 60,000 chinook salmon per year. Chinook
salmon is the most essential subsistence resource for villages
throughout Western Alaska. These villages are among the most remote
and cash poor in Alaska. The trawl fishery is owned by 100 boats
that split a harvest worth a billion dollars per year. The NPFMC
decided that the extremely lucrative pollock fishery should be
allowed to throw away 60,000 chinook salmon as waste while
subsistence fishermen on the Yukon River are under harvest
restrictions and cannot meet their basic nutritional, economic and
cultural needs. The imbalance of power must be corrected
And, the arctic region is uniquely key
UNEP 10 (United Natins Environment Program, Johnsen, K. Alfthan,
B. Hislop, L. Skaalvik, J. F. (Editors), Protecting Arctic
Biodiversity: Limitations and Strengths of Environental Agreements
UNEP Grid Arendal, 2010, Online [HT])
The Arctic contribution to global biodiversity is significant.
Although the Arctic has relatively few species compared to areas
such as the tropics, the region is recognised for its genetic
diversity, reflecting the many ways in which species have adapted
to extreme environment2. Hundreds of migrating species (including
279 species of birds, and the grey and humpback whales) travel long
distances each year in order to take advantage of the short but
productive Arctic summers2.
And, The impact of unchecked oceanic species loss is
extinction
NOAA 98 National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 1998
(Year of the Ocean Report,
http://www.yoto98.noaa.gov/yoto/meeting/mar_env_316.html)
The ocean plays a critical role in sustaining the life of this
planet. Every activity, whether natural or anthropogenic, has far
reaching impacts on the world at large. For example, excessive
emissions of greenhouse gases may contribute to an increase the sea
level, and cause potential flooding or an increase in storm
frequency; this flooding can reduce wetland acreage and increase
sediment and nutrient flows into the Gulf of Mexico, causing
adverse impacts on water quality and reducing habitat for
commercial fisheries. This in turn drives up the cost of fish at
local markets nationwide. The environment and the economic health
of marine and coastal waters are linked at the individual,
community, state, regional, national and international levels. The
interdependence of the economy and the environment are widely
recognized. The United States has moved beyond viewing health,
safety, and pollution control as additional costs of doing business
to an understanding of broader stewardship, recognizing that
economic and social prosperity would be useless if the coastal and
marine environments are compromised or destroyed in the process of
development (President's Council on Sustainable Development, 1996).
Much about the ocean, its processes, and the interrelationship
between land and sea is unknown. Many harvested marine resources
depend upon a healthy marine environment to exist. Continued
research is needed so that sound management decisions can be made
when conflicts among users of ocean resources arise. Although much
progress has been made over the past 30 years to enhance marine
environmental quality and ocean resources, much work remains. The
challenge is to maintain and continue to improve marine water
quality as more people move to the coasts and the pressures of
urbanization increase. Through education, partnerships,
technological advances, research, and personal responsibility,
marine environmental quality should continue to improve, sustaining
resources for generations to come."It does not matter where on
Earth you live, everyone is utterly dependent on the existence of
that lovely, living saltwater soup. There's plenty of water in the
universe without life, but nowhere is there life without water. The
living ocean drives planetary chemistry, governs climate and
weather, and otherwise provides the cornerstone of the life-support
system for all creatures on our planet, from deep-sea starfish to
desert sagebrush. That's why the ocean matters. If the sea is sick,
we'll feel it. If it dies, we die. Our future and the state of the
oceans are one."
Solvency
Only amending Magnuson-Stevens solves
NCAI 13
The National Congress of American Indians Resolution #TUL-13-023
TITLE: Magnuson-Stevens Fisheries Conservation Act Reauthorization.
http://www.ncai.org/attachments/Resolution_eZMCowJdlHMOPXlAlqqATLOxikexcHuLMHOEjyCCskGlYVUVFsT_TUL-13-023%20Final.pdf
without appropriate reform of the Magnuson-Stevens Fisheries
Conservation Act, natural fish populations and the Alaska Native
inhabitants well-being along with the treaty- protected rights of
Pacific Northwest Indian nations and tribes will continue to be at
risk. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the NCAI requests the
following changes Magnuson-Stevens Fisheries Conservation Act:
Separate conservation and allocation decisions, leaving allocation
decisions to the management councils, but giving responsibility of
conservation decisions to a separate governmental entity subject to
the standard rules of good governance and composed of an
interagency scientific panel; Utilize ecosystem based management
rather than species specific management; Tribes and/or subsistence
users be represented on the North Pacific Fishery Management
Council; Amend the purpose of the act to include promotion of
Alaska Native subsistence rights and tribal fisheries based on
treaty rights, including a mandate to be responsive to the needs of
federally recognized tribes; Require that the national standards
for fishery conservation and management take into account the
importance of fishery resources of subsistence-based and tribal
commercial fishing communities; Provide that conservation and
management measures shall require bycatch reduction under specific
circumstances; Require that the Secretary of Commerce shall
consider experience in tribal subsistence harvests and tribal
commercial fishing as qualification to serve on a management
council; Remove the limit of $25,000 per year on bycatch fines in
the North Pacific and direct funds to the Arctic-Yukon-Kuskokwim
Sustainable Salmon Initiative and the Yukon and Kuskokwim
Inter-tribal Fish Commissions; Include relief for subsistence
tribal commercial fisheries disasters and allow tribes to request
relief from the appropriate federal agency; Require management
councils to consult and consider input from tribal governments;
Require management council members to be subject to conflict of
interests standards;v12. Require fishery management plans to
include provisions necessary to implement tribal treaty rights; 13.
Limit state authority to regulate and interfere with the exercise
of tribal treaty fishing rights where regulated by tribal
governments; 14. Provide resources for mitigation efforts when
needed to protect tribal treaty rights including, increased
hatchery production, habitat protection and restoration,
development of alternative fisheries when primary fisheries have
been reduced, and the development of value added programs to
increase the value of treaty fisheries And, congressional action is
key
AFN 11
Alaska Federation of Natives: 2011 Federal Priorites. AFN is the
largest statewide Native organization in Alaska. Its membership
includes 178 villages (both federally recognized tribes and village
corporations), 13 regional Native corporations and 12 regional
nonprofit and tribal consortia that contract and run federal and
state programs. AFN is governed by a 37-member board of directors,
which is elected by its membership at the annual convention held
each October. The Alaska Federation of Natives was formed in
October 1966, when more than 400 Alaska Natives representing 17
Native organizations, gathered for a three-day conference to
address Alaska Native aboriginal land rights.:
http://www.nativefederation.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/2011-afn-federal-priorities.pdf
Congress is urged to enact legislation that will provide lasting
protection for our way of life. Necessary changes to federal law
include: a) Adding a Native priority to the current rural priority
for subsistence. The current rural priority for subsistence hunting
and fishing in Title VIII of ANILCA is inadequate in light of
growing urban pressures on finite resources. Several federal laws
now provide a Native or Native-plus-rural or Native-plus-local
subsistence priority in Alaska (e.g. for the taking of halibut,
marine mammals, and migratory birds). The same priority should be
provided for the legitimate subsistence uses of fish and wildlife
by Alaska Natives. b) Extending federal protection of Native
subsistence rights to Native-owned lands and all navigable waters
and marine waters in Alaska. c) Giving Alaska Natives an ongoing
and meaningful co-management role in the federal subsistence
management program. d) Exempting the Regional Advisory Councils
(RACs) from the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) so that
membership can be limited to eligible subsistence users. 2. Convene
a high-level inter-agency meeting with key White House officials,
including the Domestic Policy Council, and the Departments that
have jurisdiction over subsistence uses. Subsistence management and
legal rights of Alaska Natives cut across a number of Departments
within the Administration, including Interior, Agriculture,
Justice, State and Commerce. If meaningful protections are to be
provided for subsistence hunting and fishing in Alaska, there must
be an on-going dialogue between Alaska Native leaders and the
agencies with jurisdiction over the various aspects of Alaska
Natives subsistence way of life. This is a critically important
moment in history for Alaska Natives with respect to hunting and
fishing,
***Case Ext.***
***Status Quo***
Squo bad
Raymond-Yakoubian 12
Raymond-Yakoubian, J. 2012. Participation and Resistance: Tribal
Involvement in Bering Sea Fisheries Management and Policy. In: C.
Carothers, K.R. Criddle, C.P. Chambers, P.J. Cullenberg, J.A. Fall,
A.H. Himes-Cornell, J.P. Johnsen, N.S. Kimball, C.R. Menzies, and
E.S. Springer (eds.), Fishing People of the North: Cultures,
Economies, and Management Responding to Change. Alaska Sea Grant,
University of Alaska Fairbanks. doi:10.4027/fpncemrc.2012.10 Alaska
Sea Grant, University of Alaska Fairbanks Participation and
Resistance: Tribal Involvement in Bering Sea Fisheries Management
and Policy Julie Raymond-Yakoubian Kawerak, Inc., Nome, Alaska,
USA
Bering Strait region tribes have faced a number of important
marine management issues over the past several years. The tribes
and Kawerak, Incorporated (Kawerak), in conjunction with several
other Alaska Native and other organizations, have been struggling
to become involved in the policy and decision making processes for
Bering Sea issues. This paper reviews some issues and ways in which
Bering Strait tribes have participated, or attempted to
participate, in northern Bering Sea federal marine management, and
ways in which they have resisted the
current118Raymond-YakoubianTribal Involvement in Fisheries
Management Figure 1. Bering Strait communities with federally
recognized tribes. regime (many tribes from other regions of Alaska
have also participated in many of the issues described below).
Following this, I outline some major problems that tribes and
agencies/bodies involved have faced, and offer some solutions to
how all parties can move forward in a posi- tive manner. This
discussion is limited to the National Marine Fisheries Service
(NMFS) and the North Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council),
as they are the two primary bodies involved in the major issues of
concern to Bering Strait tribes.
Squo bad, plan solves
Dischner 13
Tribal consultation plays unofficial role in council process
MOLLY DISCHNER, ALASKA JOURNAL OF COMMERCE 10/17/13:
http://www.alaskajournal.com/Alaska-Journal-of-Commerce/October-Issue-3-2013/Tribal-consultation-plays-unofficial-role-in-council-process/
The clarification on fishery councils came after a comment on
the proposed policy asked for a revision to require consultation at
the council level. Sanderson wants a designated seat on the council
for an Alaska Native representative. After all, the fishing
industry gets the majority of the seats, he said, so the 228
federally-recognized tribes should also have one. Theres some
precedent for Sandersons request, although the official opinion
stated that it wasnt necessary. The Pacific Fishery Management
Council, which has oversight in federal waters offshore from
California, Oregon and Washington, does have a dedicated seat for a
Tribal representative. Federally-recognized tribes submit their
nominations for that seat to the U.S. Secretary of Commerce. The
Pacific council also has 14 voting members, more than the 11 on the
North Pacific council. But a seat would be a start, Sanderson said.
Then, itd just be a matter of finding a representative the Alaska
Native community could agree on, he said. The current council
chairman is Eric Olson, who is an Alaska Native and works for Yukon
Delta Fisheries Development Association, one of the six Community
Development Quota groups representing 65 Western Alaska villages
that receive 10.7 percent of Bering Sea fishing quotas. Olson is
also a shareholder in the Bristol Bay Native Corp., one of the 12
Alaska Native regional corporations. For now though, both Sanderson
and Pletnikoff have said indigenous groups also need to take a
greater role in testifying and participating in the decisions. In
June, Pletnikoff said indigenous groups need to work on solutions
for the canyons. It behooves us now for organizations interested to
pay close attention to this issue as it develops and to demand a
seat at the table, Pletnikoff said. Sanderson would like his
colleagues from other tribes to get more involved at the council,
particularly in bycatch. He testified again on the matter at the
October council meeting, and said he was disappointed not to see
greater representation. We need more Tribal people there to
testify, Sanderson said. Not every item of the council agenda is of
interest to noncommercial users, but Sanderson said its crucial
that Alaska Natives weigh in. We are all dependent on some sort of
fishery, at the least, the Natives that live on the gulf coast,
Sanderson said. ...We must do all that we can to protect whats
left. Sanderson said that its a crucial time for Alaskas fisheries.
The council is looking to rationalize the Gulf of Alaska, and has
discussed bycatch several times in the last few years. I believe
that there needs to be a process, Sanderson said. I believe that
more tribes need to jump aboard on the issue of bycatch.
Squo bad, but tribes want the aff
Raymond-Yakoubian 12
Raymond-Yakoubian, J. 2012. Participation and Resistance: Tribal
Involvement in Bering Sea Fisheries Management and Policy. In: C.
Carothers, K.R. Criddle, C.P. Chambers, P.J. Cullenberg, J.A. Fall,
A.H. Himes-Cornell, J.P. Johnsen, N.S. Kimball, C.R. Menzies, and
E.S. Springer (eds.), Fishing People of the North: Cultures,
Economies, and Management Responding to Change. Alaska Sea Grant,
University of Alaska Fairbanks. doi:10.4027/fpncemrc.2012.10 Alaska
Sea Grant, University of Alaska Fairbanks Participation and
Resistance: Tribal Involvement in Bering Sea Fisheries Management
and Policy Julie Raymond-Yakoubian Kawerak, Inc., Nome, Alaska,
USA
The current situation is that in order to, possibly, have their
concerns taken into consideration, tribes must participate in two
separate pro- cesses, neither of which function according to their
needs or acknowl- edge their unique relationship to the federal
government (these being some kind of engagement with NMFS and the
Council process). The bottom line is that by not embracing
consultation, NMFS and the Council have forced all parties into a
reactionary stance from which little that is positive or lasting
can come. Bering Strait tribes will continue to pursue policies,
research, and management goals that acknowledge and pro- tect
subsistence resources and traditional cultural practices. Despite
the problems and difficulties discussed here, Kawerak and Bering
Strait region tribes remain very interested in working with NMFS
and the Council to develop the trust and relationships necessary to
move forward on these and many other issues that are just coming to
light in the northern Bering Sea and that have the potential to
have substantial direct effects on tribes in the region.
Squo bad, plan solves (laundry list)
NCAI 13
The National Congress of American Indians Resolution #TUL-13-023
TITLE: Magnuson-Stevens Fisheries Conservation Act Reauthorization.
http://www.ncai.org/attachments/Resolution_eZMCowJdlHMOPXlAlqqATLOxikexcHuLMHOEjyCCskGlYVUVFsT_TUL-13-023%20Final.pdf
WHEREAS, the Magnuson-Stevens Fisheries Conservation Act (MSFCA)
was originally enacted in 1976, and reauthorized in 1996 and 2006,
and governs fisheries management in federal waters of the United
States; and WHEREAS, the statute authorizes the regional councils
to manage fisheries resources which Tribal citizens and communities
are hugely dependent; andWHEREAS, the eight (8) regional councils
manage a geographic region larger than the continental United
States and are responsible for the health of a $25 billion
commercial fishing industry while at the same time entrusted with
conservation of hundreds of species of marine fish; andWHEREAS, a
flawed single-species based management system which does not
consider the food web dynamics, fishing gear impacts, and
non-target species taken as bycatch has resulted in the overfishing
of a third of the nations fish stocks; and WHEREAS, Alaska Native
hunting and fishing practices are profoundly connected to long
standing cultural and spiritual beliefs and rural economies and the
use of single-species management has resulted in significant
negative impacts to Alaska Natives; and WHEREAS, the current
management of the North Pacific Fishery Management Council fails to
consider the needs of the Alaska Native people and the structure of
the council prevents tribes from participating in decision making;
and WHEREAS, under the North Pacific Fishery Management Council the
Pollock fishing industry continues to waste tens of thousands of
Chinook salmon as bycatch annually; and WHEREAS, Chinook salmon in
western Alaska have experienced failures since the year 2000; and
WHEREAS, the fishing rights of the Pacific Northwest Indian nations
and tribes are defined and protected by treaties and executive
orders of the United States and which sustain a unique culture and
economy that has suffered in recent years from depletion of
traditional salmon fisheries; and WHEREAS, the current management
of the Pacific Fishery Management Council has responsibility for
addressing the treaty- and executive order-protected fishing rights
of the Pacific Northwest Indian nations and tribes and has failed
to protect those interests; and WHEREAS, Sockeye salmon in the
Salish Sea and Spring Chinook in the Columbia River have
experienced failures since at least 1999; and WHEREAS,
***Self Determination Advantage***
No tribal input now
Raymond-Yakoubian 12
Raymond-Yakoubian, J. 2012. Participation and Resistance: Tribal
Involvement in Bering Sea Fisheries Management and Policy. In: C.
Carothers, K.R. Criddle, C.P. Chambers, P.J. Cullenberg, J.A. Fall,
A.H. Himes-Cornell, J.P. Johnsen, N.S. Kimball, C.R. Menzies, and
E.S. Springer (eds.), Fishing People of the North: Cultures,
Economies, and Management Responding to Change. Alaska Sea Grant,
University of Alaska Fairbanks. doi:10.4027/fpncemrc.2012.10 Alaska
Sea Grant, University of Alaska Fairbanks Participation and
Resistance: Tribal Involvement in Bering Sea Fisheries Management
and Policy Julie Raymond-Yakoubian Kawerak, Inc., Nome, Alaska,
USA
An overarching concern that has developed through tribal
involve- ment in the three issues (Chinook and chum bycatch and the
NBSRA) is tribal consultation. Tribal attempts at, and
participation in, consulta- tion have led to deep dissatisfaction
with how NMFS and the Council approach the process, about the role
that tribes play in Bering Sea Tribal Involvement in Fisheries
Managementresource management, and how tribal concerns are
incorporated into decision making processes.The requirement for
consultation with federally recognized tribes is primarily outlined
by Executive Order 13175 and applies to the development or
promulgation of regulations, legislative comments or proposed
legislation, and other policy statements or actions that have
substantial direct effects on one or more Indian tribes, on the
relationship between the federal government and Indian tribes, or
on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the
federal govern- ment and Indian tribes (Federal Register 2000).
This requirement was recently reiterated by President Obama in a
Presidential Memorandum issued in 2009 (Federal Register 2009). An
existing Department of Commerce policy, American Indian and Alaska
Native Consultation and Coordination Policy, issued in 1995, also
applies to the agencies within the department (DOC 1995). When it
comes to issues that may affect tribal resources, tribes are not
simply another stakeholder; they have special status as sovereign
governments, which is why special provisions like Executive Order
13175 and others exist. Bering Strait region tribes have engaged in
tribal consultation with multiple agencies in a variety of formats
for many years. From the perspective of Bering Strait region tribes
and Kawerak, tribal consultation is, at its root and most simply,
about forming and maintaining relationships between sovereign
governments (that will hopefully also become partners and
collaborators). This view, which I elaborate on below, was formally
outlined during a NMFS and Tribal Representatives Workgroup meeting
in November 2009 (NMFS 2009b), as well as through discussions with
NMFS staff during formal and informal consul- tations over the past
several years (e.g., NMFS 2010a, 2011d). Additional descriptions of
some of these meetings and elaboration on the points below can be
found in the meeting minutes and the NMFS response to the meeting
(e.g., NMFS 2009b,c). Tribal consultation, in the view of Bering
Strait tribes, should consist of an ongoing and meaningful
relationship between a tribe and a federal agency that has the
mutual objective of collaboration, should not be issue-based and
should be maintained even during periods when there are no major
issues of contention. Consultation on particular issues must also
be timely; if it is not timely, collaboration and consideration of
ideas are not feasible for either party. Other components of
consultation include two-way com- munication, accountability,
consistency (in policies, procedures, staff, etc.) and must involve
decision makers (tribal and federal government). Tribes have also
suggested other specific and basic steps that agencies and tribes
can take to ensure that a consultation relationship is successful
(such as following up on letters, etc.). Because tribal
consultation is federally mandated, because tribes have familiarity
with the process from working with other federal agencies, and
because consultation was only happening at the most basic level
(i.e., a form letter on a specific issue would be mailed to
600-plus tribes, Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act corporations,
and tribal organizations), when they began to seriously engage with
NMFS and the Council in 2008, tribes have pursued this process more
aggressively than most other possible routes of engagement. In
taking this route, as noted, tribal consultation itself has emerged
as a separate major issue of concern for Bering Strait tribes that
want to work with NMFS and the Council on marine management
issues.
Squo talks dont solve
Raymond-Yakoubian 12
Raymond-Yakoubian, J. 2012. Participation and Resistance: Tribal
Involvement in Bering Sea Fisheries Management and Policy. In: C.
Carothers, K.R. Criddle, C.P. Chambers, P.J. Cullenberg, J.A. Fall,
A.H. Himes-Cornell, J.P. Johnsen, N.S. Kimball, C.R. Menzies, and
E.S. Springer (eds.), Fishing People of the North: Cultures,
Economies, and Management Responding to Change. Alaska Sea Grant,
University of Alaska Fairbanks. doi:10.4027/fpncemrc.2012.10 Alaska
Sea Grant, University of Alaska Fairbanks Participation and
Resistance: Tribal Involvement in Bering Sea Fisheries Management
and Policy Julie Raymond-Yakoubian Kawerak, Inc., Nome, Alaska,
USA
Since 2008, when Kawerak and Bering Strait tribes began to
seriously engage with NMFS and the Council on issues of concern,
there have been three formal tribal consultation meetings, as well
as other requests for consultation that are described briefly
below. The first formal tribal consultation in January 2009, in
Nome, Alaska, focused on Chinook bycatch. Five tribes, Kawerak, and
NMFS staff participated in this con- sultation and Council staff
attended as observers (this is the only formal consultation meeting
that Council staff attended). Tribes were generally satisfied with
that first attempt at consultation; tribes expressed their concerns
about Chinook bycatch, about being left out of the process of
developing alternatives, and about NMFSs lack of understanding of
tribal consultation. Following the meeting, however, tribes were
not con- tacted by the agency for any kind of follow-up or response
to concerns. In October 2009 the Native Village of Unalakleet
requested an additional consultation meeting to continue to develop
the relation- ship between tribes and the agency and to discuss
salmon bycatch, the status of the Northern Bering Sea Research
Area, and the principles of ecosystem management. Nine tribes,
Kawerak, and NMFS AFSC staff participated in this consultation in
February 2010 in Unalakleet, Alaska. Follow-up from this meeting
was also lacking and over the long term tribes have been
disappointed in the lack of a continuing relation- ship.
Additionally, the week after the Unalakleet consultation, tribes
participated in a workshop focused on the NBSRA where they learned
information about upcoming research they had not been consulted on
and which they had not been notified of during the formal
consultation meeting. Following this, in March 2010, 15 Bering
Strait tribes requested consultation with NMFS regarding research
activities planned in the northern Bering Sea. NMFS did not respond
to these requests for con- sultation and informally denied that
they were required to carry out tribal consultation on research
activities (Raymond-Yakoubian 2010). Most recently in June 2011, a
third tribal consultation meeting took place via teleconference, on
chum salmon bycatch, in response to consultation requests by six
Bering Strait tribes. This consultation meeting was followed up by
a teleconference in October 2011 when NMFS provided additional
information to tribes and others on issues discussed at the June
meeting. During consultation tribes specifically requested a hard
cap on chum salmon bycatch in the pollock fishery, which has not
been fully addressed by NMFS. Consultation on chum salmon bycatch
also has highlighted confusion surrounding the relationship between
NMFS and the Council. After NMFS participation in the June
consultation the NMFS Alaska Region administrator wrote a letter to
the chair of the Council asking the Council to address tribes
recommendation for a chum salmon hard cap (Balsiger 2011b). Several
tribes had also requested consultation with the Council on this
issue and the Councils response to tribes was that they needed to
carry out consultation with NMFS (Oliver 2011b). Tribal members are
frustrated, to say the least, when they are told that they can
formally consult only with NMFS, but then NMFS asks the Council to
address the issue tribes are concerned about, and the Council, in
turn, treats tribes like they are any other stakeholder.
Unfortunately, tribes are being compelled to consult with a body
(NMFS) that cannot take action on or resolve many of their major
concerns, such as Chinook and chum salmon hard caps. As a result,
some tribes and tribal members feel that consultation with NMFS is
not true tribal consultation because it does not include decision
makers from the federal government side.
Squo independently killing tribal input
Raymond-Yakoubian 12
Raymond-Yakoubian, J. 2012. Participation and Resistance: Tribal
Involvement in Bering Sea Fisheries Management and Policy. In: C.
Carothers, K.R. Criddle, C.P. Chambers, P.J. Cullenberg, J.A. Fall,
A.H. Himes-Cornell, J.P. Johnsen, N.S. Kimball, C.R. Menzies, and
E.S. Springer (eds.), Fishing People of the North: Cultures,
Economies, and Management Responding to Change. Alaska Sea Grant,
University of Alaska Fairbanks. doi:10.4027/fpncemrc.2012.10 Alaska
Sea Grant, University of Alaska Fairbanks Participation and
Resistance: Tribal Involvement in Bering Sea Fisheries Management
and Policy Julie Raymond-Yakoubian Kawerak, Inc., Nome, Alaska,
USA
In attempts to engage NMFS and the Council on bycatch issues
Bering Strait region tribes and Kawerak have formally requested
tribal consultations and have fully participated in the Council
process. Collectively we have spent large amounts of money to
travel to multiple meetings to provide testimony to the Council and
its Advisory Panel and Scientific and Statistical Committee. Tribal
representatives who travel to these meetings and provide testimony
are often not engaged by Council members (i.e., through questions
following their testimony) and often describe leaving meetings
feeling as though they have wasted their time and resources
(Raymond-Yakoubian 2008-2012). These feelings are amplified for
tribal representatives when they see that fishing industry
representatives are given literally hours in front of the Council
to discuss their views, solutions, and opinions on the bycatch
issue (tribes requested additional time in front of the Council for
the June 2011 meeting in Nome where chum bycatch was discussed, but
were denied it). Tribal expert testimony is also often viewed as
anecdotal by the Council, despite the fact that many such
representatives are there speaking on behalf of their entire tribe
and their views and observations are endorsed by them. Feelings of
disappointment and frustration with the process ar