Holding Our Ground Part 13

"Programs are presented as broadcast in 1985 and 1986. Some of the issues may have changed. A new series is looking at how these issues have changed over time. For more program information please contact the producer: Jim Sykes, PO Box 696, Palmer, AK 99645. The address given at the end of the program is no longer correct."

TapeAlaska Transcripts, PO Box 696, Palmer, AK 99645
HOLDING OUR GROUND
(c) 1985 Western Media Concepts, Inc.
"RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE ALASKA NATIVE REVIEW COMMISSION"
(Part 13 of 16)

[Don Mitchell] To the extent that the report merely turns around and restates what people in villages are saying, I think it's a majestic and eloquent document. To the extent that it gives those same people a really intellectually dispassionate assessment of the Native Claims Settlement Act and of the political and legal and economic situation, that most people in villages are now in, I think it really comes up far short of what I had hoped would be achieved.

[Tom Richards] The specific solutions of how to carry out those recommendations were not defined in the report. I think that's good. People have been critical by saying that Judge Berger was not specific in his recommendations, but that leaves it up to us, on our own, to develop specific solutions to meet our particular situations.

THE DOCUMENT IS THE REPORT OF THE ALASKA NATIVE REVIEW COMMISSION. IT WAS WRITTEN BY CANADIAN JUDGE THOMAS BERGER WHO SPENT TWO YEARS TRAVELLING AROUND ALASKA, FINDING OUT WHAT PEOPLE THOUGHT ABOUT ANCSA, THE ALASKA NATIVE CLAIMS SETTLEMENT ACT. IN SEPTEMBER OF 1985, BERGER UNVEILED HIS RECOMMENDATIONS IN A BOOK CALLED "VILLAGE JOURNEY". SINCE THEN, "VILLAGE JOURNEY" HAS BECOME THE SOURCE OF VIGOROUS DISCUSSION AS ALASKA NATIVES TRY TO REGAIN CONTROL OF THEIR LANDS AND LIVES. NOW HERE'S A LOOK AT THE PROS AND CONS OF THE BERGER REPORT. THIS IS HOLDING OUR GROUND.

FUNDING FOR "HOLDING OUR GROUND" IS PROVIDED BY THE ALASKA HUMANITIES FORUM, NATIONAL ENDOWMENT FOR THE HUMANITIES, RURAL ALASKA COMMUNITY ACTION PROGRAM, THE NORTH SLOPE BOROUGH, AND ZIONTZ-PIRTLE LAW FIRM.

[Thomas Berger] I think that, with goodwill on all sides, my book, my report, can be the basis for constructive solutions to the very real problems of ANCSA. It will remain for people, perhaps years from now, to pass judgment on what I did and on the fate of my recommendations.

AN INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATION OF ESKIMOS CALLED THE INUIT CIRCUMPOLAR CONFERENCE HIRED JUDGE THOMAS BERGER TO ASK ALASKA NATIVE PEOPLES WHAT THEY THOUGHT ABOUT ANCSA, THE 1971 ALASKA NATIVE CLAIMS SETTLEMENT ACT. BERGER VISITED 62 GATHERINGS IN FISH CAMPS, VILLAGES, AND CITIES HEARING PEOPLE'S CONCERNS.

[Thomas Berger] The main concerns of Alaska Natives are land, self-government, and subsistence. These concerns are linked. Taken together they are the means by which the Native people seek to regain control over their land, their communities and their lives.

WHEN CONGRESS PASSED THE ALASKA NATIVE CLAIMS SETTLEMENT ACT, THEY GAVE THE LANDS AND MONEY TO CORPORATIONS NOT TO INDIVIDUALS AND NOT TO NATIVE GOVERNMENTS. ORIGINALLY THE ACT CREATED 12 LARGE REGIONAL CORPORATIONS AND MORE THAN 200 VILLAGE CORPORATIONS. THE CORPORATIONS WERE GIVEN 20 YEARS TO SUCCEED BEFORE THE RESTRICTED STOCK COULD BE SOLD ON THE OPEN MARKET, WHICH COULD LEAD TO CORPORATE TAKEOVERS. LANDS COULD ALSO BE LOST IF FUTURE TAXES CAN'T BE PAID. BUT ALREADY, CREDITORS ARE DEMANDING LANDS THAT NATIVES HOPED TO KEEP FOR FUTURE GENERATIONS.

JUDGE BERGER RECOMMENDS FUNDAMENTAL CHANGES TO STOP THE LOSS OF NATIVE LANDS.
[Thomas Berger] So I've urged that the village corporations should transfer their lands to the village tribal governments. This will keep the land in Native ownership. That means that in the hands of tribal governments, the ancestral lands of the villagers cannot be lost through corporate failure, they cannot be the subject of corporate takeover, and they cannot be forfeited through failure to pay state or local taxes. There is another advantage to transferring the land from the Native corporations to the local tribal councils, and that is that the "new Natives" or "afterborns", the children born since 1971 who have no right to be issued shares in the Native corporations; the "new Natives" or "afterborns" would also achieve full rights as tribal members and would enjoy the same rights to ancestral land as the Native people born before 1971. Now, as the law stands, village corporations can do this themselves by unanimous vote of their shareholders, if they want to.

THERE ARE TWO TYPES OF NATIVE GOVERNMENTS IN ALASKA TO WHICH LAND WOULD BE TRANSFERRED, I-R-A'S CREATED BY THE INDIAN REORGANIZTION ACT AND TRADITIONAL GOVERNMENTS. BOTH HAVE SIMILAR POWERS OF SELF-GOVERNMENT.

ANCHORAGE ATTORNEY DON MITCHELL.
Right now, as imperfect as it is, there are several statutes both in sections of the Native Claims Settlement Act itself, and in the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act, that have been included in both of those acts, to try and protect Native lands from involuntarily being lost to Native control, through having taxes levied on those lands that people wouldn't be able to raise the money to pay, from having the lands taken to pay bad debts, for example, for losing lands as the result of trespassers gaining rights through adverse possession. All of those protections however, key off of lands that are owned by village and regional corporations established under the Claims Act. Now if the lands are no longer owned by village and regional corporations established under the claims act it is a very open question as to whether or not those kinds of land protections would apply to exactly the same lands, except the piece of paper exhibiting ownership were to be in the hands of someone other than a corporation. Now many of the people who are interested in moving lands over to the IRA's and traditional councils are interested in doing so because they believe that the legal status that those lands would acquire merely by being owned by the local IRA or council would not only be at least the equivalent of the protections I just described, but might even be stronger than that. And if they're right about that legal conclusion, then I would fully agree that many village corporations could quite seriously consider that as an option. But what if they're wrong? And then down the road we find that as the result of some event where someone, either the tax man or a creditor or a trespasser, comes to assert an ownership interest in the land, we find out that perhaps Justice Berger or others, no matter how well-intended, they were mistaken about the legal protection that land would enjoy after the transfer, well may end up with at best an unsettling, and essentially a tragic situation where land has been needlessly exposed to risk just because people really didn't take the time to really be sure how firm the ground was they were on when they made the transfer.

BERGER AND HIS LEGAL CONSULTANTS BELIEVE IT CAN BE DONE.
[Thomas Berger] The road to the retribalization of Native land is plain, its implication clear; this way there is a legal path, not a legal thicket.

SINCE TRIBAL GOVERNMENTS DON'T OWN THE LAND LIKE INDIANS IN THE CONTINENTAL UNITED STATES, THERE HAS BEEN CONFUSION ABOUT THE POWERS NATIVE GOVERNMENTS HAVE AND WHERE THEY CAN EXERT THEM. UNDER BERGER'S PLAN THEY COULD EXERT THEIR POWERS OVER LANDS TRANSFERRED TO THEM BY THE VILLAGE CORPORATIONS. WHILE IT WOULD PROVIDE A DEFINABLE LAND BASE FOR JURISDICTION, IT WOULD NOT GUARANTEE THAT THE STATE OF ALASKA WOULD RECOGNIZE THE TRIBAL GOVERNMENTS.

NELSON ANGAPUK IS PRESIDENT OF THE CALISTA REGIONAL CORPORATION. HE POINTS OUT THAT THE RIGHTS OF NATIVE SELF-GOVERNMENT HAVE NEVER BEEN TAKEN AWAY.
Any legislation dealing with the right to govern ourselves, i.e. the issue of sovereignty, should be more in terms of confirmation that yes, in fact, we have those rights and that those rights are in fact intact.

THE STATE CONTRACTS FOR SERVICES WITH 55 TRIBAL GOVERNMENTS WHERE THERE IS NO STATE CHARTERED CITY.

BERGER RECOMMENDS THAT TRIBAL GOVERNMENTS ASSUME A GREATER ROLE IN LOCAL GOVERNMENT.
[Thomas Berger] Tribal governments established in all of Alaska's Native villages should assert their Native sovereignty. The State of Alaska should recognize tribal governments as appropriate local governments for all purposes under state law. These measures important for Native self-rule may entail the dissolution of some, but not all, of the state chartered local governments in Native villages.

THE WORDS "NATIVE SOVEREIGNTY" WORRIES SOME PEOPLE LIKE GLEN FREDERICKS, PRESIDENT OF KUSKOKWIM CORPORATION.
I talk to a lot of people, non-Natives, that are very scared of the word "sovereignty", you know. When you say sovereignty, in my mind, it's a little nation out there, you make your own rules just like any other little country, I guess.

People in the bush want a greater measure of control over their lives, their communities, and their land. (JUDGE BERGER) And they've decided that the best way to achieve that goal, is by asserting Native sovereignty. Now that doesn't mean that they want to set up little nation-states throughout Alaska and send delegates to the United Nations. What it means is that the Alaska Natives who live in these villages want to assert their right as distinct political communities to govern themselves. They always did, before the Russians came, before the Americans came, they were there. Let's take a look at what these things mean. Instead of pasting a label, "sovereignty" on Native aspirations, look behind it, see what's there. What does it entail? Maybe we can live with it.

BERGER TALKS OF ASSERTING TRIBAL AUTHORITY OVER LANDS GRANTED BY ANCSA, ABOUT ONE TENTH OF ALASKA. CHARLIE KAIRIAUAK IS PRESIDENT OF A STATEWIDE TRIBAL GOVERNMENT ORGANIZATION CALLED U-T-A, UNITED TRIBES OF ALASKA. HE WOULD LIKE TO SEE THE TRIBAL GOVERNMENTS HAVE JURISDICITON OVER TRADITIONAL BOUNDARIES, WHICH ARE LARGELY OWNED BY THE STATE AND FEDERAL GOVERNMENTS, AND MAKE UP MOST OF THE STATE.

[Charlie Kairiauak] The villages have to establish their jurisdictional boundaries. The villages themselves have to recognize them first by establishing them through legal documents, then they can address these issues to the federal government. And the federal government, once they recognize those jurisdictional boundaries, will probably mandate the state to recognize it, because the federal government supercedes the states authority. And by the mere fact that it does supercede state authority, the state would have to recognize whatever the federal government recognizes.

DON MITCHELL SEES COMPLICATIONS AS LONG AS THE LAW REMAINS VAGUE WITH LAWYERS ON ALL SIDES.
The Congress has the authority, and has exercised that authority, to establish whatever rules with whatever conditions it wants, relating to Native-American people, including Alaska Natives. And so the legal question becomes "What rules has Congress intended"? It's so complicated, it's so ambiguous, that pretty much anyone can read into this set of statutes whatever it is they think is the result they'd like to see. And until it's decided what is the actual result that Congress intended, there's enough there on all sides of the issue, to arrive at any result you are sympathetic with intellectually and politically.

THE LAND IS THE SOURCE OF PEOPLES' LIVELIHOODS AND IT IS THE ECONOMY IN PLACES WHERE THE CASH ECONOMY WILL PROBABLY NEVER TAKE OVER.

JUDGE BERGER.
I recommend that tribal governments should have exclusive jurisdiction over fish and wildlife on Native lands, whether owned by Native corporations or by tribal governments. There, they should manage the resources themselves. Native lands comprise only 10 per cent of the state and are inadequate for Native subsistence.

BERGER SAYS THAT NATIVE HUNTING AND FISHING RIGHTS SHOULD NOT BE REGULATED EXCEPT FOR CONSERVATION.

Native people must have guaranteed access to their other fishing, hunting, trapping and gathering areas on state and federal lands. Also in partnership with state and federal authorities they should have jurisdiction over fish and wildlife in those areas. Simply put, the members of Alaska Native tribes ought to have exclusive hunting and fishing rights and jurisdiction over Native lands and waters, and shared rights and jurisdiction over state and federal lands and waters.

DON MITCHELL.
Most people who live in most villages, and most village economies are dependent in large measure upon continued access to healthy populations of game and fish stocks. And that that is really a non-negotiable element of any kind of policy relating to protecting or recognizing the unique reality of village life in Alaska. I think that goes without saying. And I think that Justice Berger did a more than adequate job of explaining why people believe that is important, and suggesting that it is something that does need to be protected. I think, however, that allowing every village to adopt hunting and fishing regulations outside of the state structure on just its lands completely ignores both the political realities, that are involved in such a suggestion, on the one hand, and also the actual realities of fish and wildlife management on the ground, in the other. The idea that game populations would sit within the somewhat capricious boundaries of village corporation selections, that game populations would move around their range somehow would be susceptible to some kind of regulatory situation that involved as many as 20 or 30 different sets of regulations, and if in fact there's going to be some kind of organization of village management activities, how that would be funded. I mean, the amount of money that the government now spends on fish and wildlife management at both the state and federal level is just extraordinary. And to make no mention of the practical and political realities associated with the suggestion that village control of hunting and fishing regulations would somehow be a step that would be an improvement, I just think is regrettable.

Who more is qualified on the local level to know who needs to go out and hunt and fish, in a village. (NELSON ANGAPAK) Certainly Fish and Game or Fish and Wildlife Service sitting out of their Anchorage offices cannot determine who could qualify for subsistence hunting and fishing. And I think at this time, having seen attempts of the State of Alaska and the federal government to enforce their laws, I believe that local enforcement would have a lot more effect than enforcement out of Fairbanks, Anchorage, or Juneau. I would say that enforcement should be on the local level because those folks certainly can, through peer pressure and through cultural training, can enforce the laws of conservation. You know one can't forget, and one has to remember the fact that prior to the arrival of Western man the Native was out there. And the Native was taught to catch what they need and what they need only. I believe that before even the advent of your Sierra Clubs, Friends of the Earth, Wilderness Society, and what have you, the art of conservation was practiced and if it wasn't practiced we wouldn't be here today.

THE LAND, SUBSISTENCE AND SOVEREIGNTY ISSUES ADD UP TO A DIFFERENT WAY OF LIFE IN THE ALASKAN BUSH. JUDGE BERGER.
Is America willing to acknowledge the persistence of Native culture and Native values in Alaska, the legitimacy of distinct modes of Native land holding and Native governance as essential expressions of Native culture and values? Does America's cultural pluralism extend to all of its Indigenous peoples?

THAT QUESTION REMAINS TO BE ANSWERED. BERGER'S RECORD IS IMPRESSIVE. BEGINNING IN 1974, HE DID AN IN DEPTH STUDY ABOUT BUILDING A PIPELINE FROM ALASKA'S PRUDHOE BAY THRU CANADA TO THE CONTINENTAL U.S. HE TRAVELLED TO NATIVE VILLAGES ALL OVER CANADA AND HEARD PEOPLE'S CONCERNS THERE. HE WROTE A REPORT CALLED "NORTHERN FRONTIER, NORTHERN HOMELAND". HE RECOMMENDED AGAINST THE PIPELINE, AND FOR GAME RESERVES PLUS POLITICAL AND SUBSISTENCE RIGHTS FOR NATIVE PEOPLES. MOST OF HIS RECOMMENDATIONS WERE APPROVED AND IMPLEMENTED.

DON MITCHELL HAS DOUBTS THAT THE RECOMMENDATIONS IN VILLAGE JOURNEY WILL CARRY THE SAME WEIGHT.
Probably one difference, between this situation and the situation that Justice Berger experienced with his work in Canada in the McKenzie Valley, is that it was the government that had asked him to come in and make this analysis and give it his thoughts on what should be done. And certainly what that meant was that his series of recommendations had a sponsor, someone who had some ability to alter that political reality in a manner that Justice Berger suggested. I think it is a very open question whether or not such a patron exists here in Alaska for the work that Justice Berger has completed here. And you look at the people that can influence the system and you've got the State of Alaska, you've got the Alaska Congressional delegation, you would have members of Congress off the Alaska congressional delegation who might be prepared to try and implement certain recommendations over the objections of the delegation, and you have certainly the Secretary of the Interior who might be able to do some things administratively, and then you have the Native community itself, which can suggest certain courses of action to these other people, but really cannot impose the implementation of the series of recommendations unilaterally. And so, once you go through the list, and you start considering, well, who is it, other than a large segment of the Native community who has embraced the report and the recommendations that can actually do something about them, the list gets fairly narrow.

DALEE SAMBO RUNS THE ANCHORAGE OFFICE OF THE INUIT CIRCUMPOLAR CONFERENCE WHICH SPONSORED BERGER.
I think the Berger hearing process was useful to at least provoke the dialogue and to generate the dialogue on a village level, on a regional level, and on a statewide level. And I think it has been successful in doing that. I think village Alaska Native people speaking their minds has prompted the controversy. They're going to do whatever they can to protect their values and concerns, and their land. It's clear that nothing could be compared to what's at stake. We're talking about 44 million acres of Native land, the largest single Indian landholding in the United States. We're talking about the lives of, what, 80 thousand plus Alaska Native people. And really nothing can be compared with what is at stake here.

This Berger Report does represent, (CHARLIE KAIRIAUAK), the concerns of the villages. It should be considered one of the key documents. They, in those villages, do have real life concerns. They should consider any and all legal actions that they can take in order to make people realize that there is legitimate reasons for fearing land loss.

TOM RICHARDS, VICE-PRESIDENT OF A-V-C-P, THE ASSOCIATION OF VILLAGE COUNCIL PRESIDENTS
...I think some of the strongest things about the report, strongest points, are perhaps what are being given the most criticism by others in the Native community. He was criticized for taking a global perspective, but I think that's very good because we now have an opportunity to take a look at a number of models for ownership and control of Native resources and land. And it will give a very clear indication to people that the corporate system is not the only means available to Native people for controlling and managing their resources.

A-F-N, THE ALASKA FEDERATION OF NATIVES REPRESENTS THE LARGE REGIONAL CORPORATIONS. THEY ARE ALSO THE MOST WELL-KNOWN NATIVE POLITICAL LOBBYING GROUP.

JANIE LEASK IS A-F-N PRESIDENT.
While coming short of endorsing the recommendations that have come out in the Berger Report, we acknowledge the work and the testimony, and all, that have been put into this report. And we strongly urge that village corporations and regional corporations consider the Berger Report and the recommendations along with other recommendations as a tool from which they would make their own determination of what works best for them within their own situation.

THE REGIONAL CORPORATIONS OWN THE SUBSURFACE OF VILLAGE LANDS--ANOTHER ONE OF THE QUIRKS OF THE CLAIMS ACT. SOME ALASKA NATIVES HAVE SUGGESTED THE REGIONAL CORPORATION MAY WANT TO TRANSFER THE SUBSURFACE VILLAGE LANDS THEY OWN TO THE VILLAGE SO THAT SUBSURFACE AND SURFACE LAND WOULD AGAIN BE TOGETHER. THERE HAVE ALSO BEEN SUGGESTIONS THAT CORPORATIONS WOULD BE CHARTERED UNDER TRIBAL GOVERNMENTS INSTEAD OF THE STATE. THERE ARE MANY OPTIONS THAT COULD PROVE USEFUL. PEOPLE ARE APPROACHING THE PROBLEMS CAUTIOUSLY TO TRY TO DETERMINE THE LEGAL REPERCUSSIONS OF ANY GIVEN ACTION, BUT A WIDE DISCUSSION OF THE PROBLEMS AND POSSIBLE SOLUTIONS HAS BEGUN.

If I've been able to write for the Native people of Alaska, a report, (JUDGE BERGER) if they can take that report to decision-makers in Juneau, take that report to decision-makers in Washington, and the administration and in Congress, and say, look, this is a book that tells you what it is that concerns us, and what we want to do about it, then I will be pleased. That is what I conceive my job to be and that's what I tried to do. I hope I've done something useful for the people of Alaska, the Native people and the non-Native people to enable them to build a true partnership in the State of Alaska.

BOB KOKRINE OF TANANA.
Just for the future, this is a good start anyway, it's a good truthful start, just to find out what everybody thinks and do something that's gonna be productive for all of us--not only us, but the ones after us, and everything.

DALEE SAMBO.
It is going to take the work of Alaska Native people. It's going to have to be the will of the Alaska Native people to effect some kind of positive change.

THE ALASKA NATIVE CLAIMS SETTLEMENT ACT HAS UNDERGONE MINOR CHANGES SIX TIMES ALREADY. MAJOR CHANGES ARE BEING DISCUSSED AND PROPOSED, AND VILLAGE JOURNEY WILL BE AN IMPORTANT DOCUMENT.

ANCSA WAS A LANDMARK SETTLEMENT, AWAKENING INDIGENOUS PEOPLES ALL OVER THE WORLD TO THE POSSIBILITY OF SETTLING LAND CLAIMS WITH NATIONAL GOVERNMENTS. NOW ALASKA NATIVES ARE LOOKING AT SOME OF THE SETTLEMENTS MADE SINCE ANCSA PASSED, IN A SEARCH FOR WAYS TO CORRECT THE FLAWS AFFECTING THE CLAIMS ACT. JOIN US NEXT TIME FOR A LOOK AT "OTHER SETTLEMENTS WITH INDIGENOUS PEOPLES." FOR HOLDING OUR GROUND, THIS IS ADELINE RABOFF.

THIS PROGRAM IS PRODUCED AND WRITTEN BY JIM SYKES AND SUE BURRUS, EDITED BY SUE BURRUS AND RESEARCHED BY FRANKIE BURRUS. ADDITIONAL TAPE WAS GATHERED BY LAURIE HILL, PATTY HARPER, AND MARK BAUMGARTNER. SPECIAL THANKS TO THE COMMUNITY OF GAMBELL FOR DANCING, SINGING, AND DRUMMING, AND ALSO TO THE INUIT CIRCUMPOLAR CONFERENCE. "HOLDING OUR GROUND" IS A PRODUCTION OF WESTERN MEDIA CONCEPTS, WHICH IS SOLELY RESPONSIBLE FOR THE CONTENT.

FUNDING FOR "HOLDING OUR GROUND" IS PROVIDED BY THE ALASKA HUMANITIES FORUM, THE NATIONAL ENDOWMENT FOR THE HUMANITIES, RURAL ALASKA COMMUNITY ACTION PROGRAM, THE NORTH SLOPE BOROUGH, AND ZIONTZ-PIRTLE LAW FIRM.

[Western Media Concepts no longer exists. Please Contact TapeAlaska, PO Box 696, Palmer, AK 99645 for information about Holding Our Ground.]

PROGRAM SUMMARIES:

1. The People, the Land, and the Law
Comprehensive 30-minute survey of the burning issues facing Alaska's Native community in the second half of this decade. This tour over the vast landscape of Alaska Native affairs serves as an overview of the topics to be treated in depth during the other 14 segments.

2. The Land and Sea
The ages-old Native feeling about the land comes across the airwaves like a fresh breeze. Two starkly different realities are presented—the Native concept of oneness with the land and the Western notion of land ownership and development. How do these contrasting philosophies fit the Native in rural Alaska?

3. Subsistence—A Way of Life
Far from the political and legal controversies surrounding subsistence, Natives carry on their traditional subsistence lifestyles. Hear their very personal descriptions of subsistence, what it is, and what it means to them. An important aspect of this documentary will be to delve into the mix of subsistence and cash economies.

4. Sovereignty—What it Means to People
Self-determination is the heart of a rising grassroots political movement. The listener will learn that this quest by Native people to control their own futures reaches far into the past. And the listener will discover that American political theory is not as much at odds with the sovereignty movement as one might think.

5. Traditional Councils and Corporate Boardrooms
Who calls the shots in the Native community: A look at power, history, and decision making. The audience will consider change from the perspectives of traditional village rule to government and corporate bureaucracies.

6. The Land and the Corporations
Traditional Native lands became corporate assets because the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act created profit-making Native corporations to hold the land. This segment will look at one of the toughest questions facing the Native community today: "Do these Native corporations have an obligation to develop their lands to earn a profit for their shareholders, or do they have an obligation to preserve those lands for subsistence and for generations to come?"

7. Risking and Saving the Land
Land owned by Native corporations can be lost through sales, corporate takeover, bankruptcy, or taxation. This has generated so much concern among Natives trying to save their land that there are now a number of options to prevent loss of these lands. This program is an exploration of the major risks and what alternatives are available.

8 Subsistence and the Law
Carrying on the subsistence lifestyle without interference from the law is a thing of the past. Traditional ways of hunting fishing, and gathering are now subject to political and legal changes and challenges in what may well be Alaska's most bitter controversy. Hear discussion of the new role of Alaska Natives as treaty-makers and game managers.

9. Sovereignty - How it Works in Real Life
Local government control is a reality in some areas of Native Alaska. In other areas Natives are working to implement their own unique forms of self- government. Some have found self-determination in traditional government. Take a close look at the communities where sovereignty is becoming a reality.

10. The Newborns—Left Out of ANCSA
When the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act. passed on December 18, 1971, all those yet to be born were left out. Now thousands of teenagers and toddlers alike are on the outside of ANCSA looking in. The Native community is divided into ANCSA shareholders and newborns, and the problems could get worse. Natives young and old speak out in eloquent terms.

11. From Hunter, Fisher, Gatherer to Corporate Director
The corporation idea—how and why it was chosen as a vehicle for land claims. Was this a good way to give Alaska Natives a piece of the American dream, or was it a way of assimilating them? This program examines how Natives have made the transition from traditional life to corporate director or shareholder

12. Changing the Claims Act—The Key Players
Nearly every Native organization in the state is jumping on the "Let's do something about ANCSA" idea. What began as grassroots dissatisfaction with the act has now shifted into a well-organized movement. There is the Inuit Circumpolar Conference, the United Tribes of Alaska, the Alaska Federation of Natives, and Association of Village Council Presidents, and others.

13. Recommendations of the Alaska Native Review Commission
An historic journey by Canadian Judge Thomas R. Berger has culminated in some provocative recommendations about the options open to Alaska's Natives. Listeners will hear a cross-section of views about what Berger reported and how this may affect changes in the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act.

14. Other Settlements with Indigenous Peoples Settlement Act
The Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act inspired other indigenous peoples in the world to seek land claims in the settlements with their countries. This program will look at those efforts in Canada, Greenland, Australia, Norway, and elsewhere. Now some of the land claims proposals of others are being studied by Alaskans seeking to improve ANCSA.

15. The Dream versus the Reality
The final segment considers what people wanted all along in land claims and what they got. Should all the hard work of the past be scrapped? How has the dream changed? Voices of many people speak of the future, what they want and how they will go about getting it for themselves and their Children.

16. Special Program--Berger's Recommendations