ALASKA NATIVES COMMISSION
JOINT FEDERAL-STATE COMMISSION
ON
POLICIES AND PROGRAMS AFFECTING
ALASKA NATIVES
4000 Old Seward Highway, Suite 100
Anchorage,
Alaska 99503
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Witness List | PDF
Version
COMMISSIONER PAGANO: I don't want to cut off; but next person is Paul Swetzof. If you'll come up, and keep your testimony to ten minutes.
(Pause.)
MR. SWETZOF: I hope I can take less time than that. It's -- I was just taking notes; and every time I take notes, I ramble; so forgive me. Only when --
COMMISSIONER PAGANO: I'll put my hand up --
MR. SWETZOF: -- I take notes. When I just
speak, I don’t ramble.
COMMISSIONER PAGANO: -- when you're finished.
MR. SWETZOF: What's that?
COMMISSIONER PAGANO: You get a chop when you're finished.
MR. SWETZOF: Yeah, chop me when you're finished (laughing). The -- first of all, I just wanted to address that one guy was up here speaking on the environment, and he found yellow pus, and what have you, in the whales; and the question that came from the Com -- some of the Commission members was, you know, how does this relate to self-governance? I w -- I'm proud that one of my relatives, Larry Merculieff, is -- has initiated a Bering Sea Coalition just to address that real quick; and that Bering Sea Coalition ex -- is suppo -- is attempting to get the input. And the membership consists of all of the villages in both the Russian and the American side -- and the Alaska side who border the Bering Sea, because the Bering Sea is pretty sick right now.
And those -- a lot of those entities that are a part of that are obviously tribal governments, and those t -- and the idea there is that: (a) traditional knowledge coming from -- come through and by the tribal government; and (b) co-management with the villages bordering the Bering Sea, along with traditional Western knowledge, because Western knowledge is so compartmentalized. And Native people who live along the w -- who live along the ocean, tend to take a broader total eco-system-type of a view.
So that's -- and that's -- co-management concept is a self-governance concept. That was one of yo -- I think it was your question, Frank, or Bart's question, or something.
The other thing was I think the Commission
needs to address the underlying problems and concerns of people;
and I would strongly suggest that -- and I would say -- I don't
know how you put things on the record, but I would strongly
suggest that you go back three or four years and take a look
at the Berger (ph.) Commission Report. I think if you're looking
for things on self-governance that have to do with what's in
Alaska, it wasn't a White guy from Canada trying to impose
his views, that was -- it was Native people from all areas
of the state, many with divergent views who came together,
showed their commonality; and it was written up in a report.
And the report is obviously sold in book forms. Many of you
have read it. And it's "Village" -- it's called "Village Journey." I
would e -- I would strongly suggest that you incorporate that
book into your delib -- into your hearings, because I think
that what you're -- the study's already been done for you.
I don't think you need to keep running around, hearing the
same thing. And I think that most of you are becoming aware
by now that what you're going to hear is pretty much the same
thing that's been said over the years. I don't think that you're
going to get a whole lot of variation on that; you might get
some little nuances of differences of opinion, and what have
you; but it's not going to change a whole lot.
The other question -- the question I really wa -- that I really wanted to address was the -- what somebody -- I think I got -- it was you, Frank, a question of the legal status of Alaska Natives as being different than perhaps -- or maybe it was Mr. Elliot there -- of the legal status of Alaska Natives being somehow different -- or questioned as being different by whoever. I think that's -- a lot of that is hype. I think that, especially under this Governor of Alaska, Wally Hickel, I think that the - - that it's presented to Congress and to other people every time he can make his voice heard, that we're not -- somehow we're different from Outside tribes, because they have treaties and we don't.
I say, I don't think it matters, and perhaps Bart and Ella can address this; perhaps Mr. Boyko can address this. It's three fine attorneys here; but I don't think that a treaty defines the sta -- defines the legal status of the federal government with Native tribes. I think what matters is the history between those tribes and the federal government.
The history of those tribes and the federal government is (a) that in '36, the IRA Act was extended to Alaska; that there -- P.L. 280, as much as I dislike that law, you can't limit powers of somebody, without first recognizing that powers exist to begin with. Those laws, such as P.L. 280, I think, c -- I think they state clearly:
"Hey, these guys have particular power, and we
want to limit that power."
And
so Congress did just that; they limited a power. They didn't pull all
power; they didn't pull all the -- the whole concept of sovereignty out
from anybody’s feet. They simply said:
"We want to limit that power somehow."
And so when you have these laws, these programs, these Executive, Congressional agency branches recognizing tribes in Alaska, you have a recognition. There's no difference. You don't need a treaty.
I think the problem is is the jurisdictional issue over lands. The Ninth Circuit in Tyonek -- and they're reconsidering their decision -- again, I don't know if Bart -- if they've come up with anything else lately; but they've said that they're -- that -- in their initial decision that the tribes, while they don't -- may not own it directly, have jurisdiction over particular lands, including corporate lands. And that was in Tyonek, Vee Puckett (ph.) Now they're considering that decision -- am I right? And they're still in the process of doing whatever it is they do with -- when they reconsider. But if that's true, if that premise holds, then what you have is how do you con -- what's -- if a corporation, by example, in a certain area won't turn the area over to a self-governing tribe, then what you have is you have a tribe able to say:
"We'll take control anyway, 'cause what we'll
do is -- by example -- is when you want to extract the particular mineral,
you'd better hope that it's zoned properly by us. You better hope that --
you better -- you -- if you want to do something, you better come to us and
ask, because we're going to zone. We're going to have development zones;
we're going to have recreational zones; we're going to have subsistence zones;
but we're going to take control of the jur -- we're going to exercise jurisdiction
over that -- over those lands."
That is legal stuff that I don't know how it's going to come out. But I would suggest that I don't think there's anything in the world that suggests that we don't have sovereign powers in tri -- among tribes. And I've gone so far as to make a few people here and there, who may not like me for this, but I've gone so far as to criticize some Native people and some White people, who have, in fact, imposed -- tried to impose their jurisdiction on other villages, by running around and saying, you know:
"You do this; and you do that."
And, boy, I tell you, in Aleut region, they don't take that stuff; and, you know, every village is entitled to its own form of government or governments, as they choose.
I think that that's self-determination, and that's -- I don't think anybody's got a right, be it another -- be -- I don't care who they are - - to tell -- to walk into another village and say:
"You do it my way."
And I think -- so I guess, in a nutshell, I think that there's no question of -- the tribes exist in Alaska, there's no trust -- question they have -- they have powers; there's no question that they have many similarities to Outside tribes. The question is ownership of land; and what kind of jurisdiction do you have over those people -- that -- over those lands? That's the question that's being decided; and lobbied and everything else.
And I think that the biggest impediment right now -- and I don't know how this commission resolves this -- to maximum self-determination and maximum sovereignty is the State of Alaska. The State of Alaska is the one running around lobbying against all -- I mean, it's -- I don't think -- every time a decision is made, it's a pol -- in Washington -- it's been more of a political decision than a legal decision. And so I don't think you have to question whether or not sovereignty exists.
And I don't really have anything else to say about that, it's just -- I would like you to, however, to put that -- the Berger (ph.) Commission report on the record for this Commission; because I think that a lot of co -- a lot of people have spoken; and I don't know why you want to do it again.
COMMISSIONER PAGANO: Do you have a question or a comment? Ella?
MS. ANAGIK: Not at this time
COMMISSIONER PAGANO: Do you have a comment or question?
MR. GARBER: No.
COMMISSIONER PAGANO: Father Elliott?
(Pause.)
Mr. Boyko?
COMMISSIONER BOYKO: I'll save it for later.
(Laughter.)
COMMISSIONER PAGANO: Thank you, Paul, for your testimony.
MR. SWETZOF: Thank you.
This document was ocr scanned. We have made every
attempt to keep the online document the same as the original,
including the recorder's original misspellings or typos.
