Journal Article•
Sovereignty and Subsistence: Native Self-Government and Rights to Hunt, Fish, and Gather After ANCSA
TL;DR: The Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA) was passed in 1971 to extinguish aboriginal rights of Alaska Natives and provide compensation for those rights extinguished by ANCSA as mentioned in this paper, but it did not directly address Alaska Native tribal status or jurisdiction, and the Supreme Court interpreted the Act to terminate the Indian country status of ANCSA land.
Abstract: The Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA) was passed in 1971 to extinguish aboriginal rights of Alaska Natives and provide compensation for those rights extinguished. Instead of vesting assets (land and money) in tribal governments, Congress required the formation of Alaska Native corporations to receive and hold these assets. A major flaw in the settlement was the failure to provide statutory protections for the aboriginal hunting, fishing, and gathering rights extinguished by ANCSA. Moreover, while ANCSA did not directly address Alaska Native tribal status or jurisdiction, the Supreme Court interpreted the Act to terminate the Indian country status of ANCSA land. Subsequently, Title VIII of the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA) was adopted in 1980 to provide a subsistence priority for rural Alaska residents, but the approach contemplated in Title VIII failed due to the State of Alaska’s unwillingness to participate. On the self-government front, state and federal courts have joined the federal Executive Branch and Congress in recognizing that Alaska Native tribes have the same legal status as other federally recognized tribes in the lower forty-eight states. The Obama Administration recently changed its regulations to allow land to be taken in trust for Alaska Native tribes, and thus be considered Indian country subject to tribal jurisdiction, and generally precluding most state authority. This article explains these developments and offers suggestions for a legal and policy path forward.
Citations
More filters
TL;DR: This article analyzed data from the 2014 Tenure and Ownership Agricultural Land survey, the 2012 Census of Agriculture, and the 2013-2014 National Agricultural Worker Survey to demonstrate that significant nationwide disparities in farming by race, ethnicity and gender persist in the U.S.
Abstract: This paper provides an analysis of U.S. farmland owners, operators, and workers by race, ethnicity, and gender. We first review the intersection between racialized and gendered capitalism and farmland ownership and farming in the United States. Then we analyze data from the 2014 Tenure and Ownership Agricultural Land survey, the 2012 Census of Agriculture, and the 2013–2014 National Agricultural Worker Survey to demonstrate that significant nation-wide disparities in farming by race, ethnicity and gender persist in the U.S. In 2012–2014, White people owned 98% and operated 94% of all farmland. They generated 98% of all farm-related income from land ownership and 97% of income from farm owner-operatorship. Meanwhile, People of Color farmers (African American or Black, Asian American, Native American, Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander, and Hispanic farmers) were more likely to be tenants rather than owners, owned less land, and generated less farm-related wealth per person than their White counterparts. Hispanic farmers were also disproportionately farm laborers. In addition to racial and ethnic disparities, there were disparities by gender. About 63% of non-operating landowners, 86% of farm operators, and 87% of tenant farmers were male, and female farmers tended to generate less income per farmer than men. This data provides evidence of ongoing racial, ethnic and gender disparities in agriculture in the United States. We conclude with a call to address the structural drivers of the disparities and with recommendations for better data collection.
87 citations
TL;DR: In this paper, the authors present a visioning process that can be used to bridge western and indigenous value systems for ocean planning and policy, and make recommendations for an indigenous approach focused on inclusion, the examination of values, adequate representation, and Tribal direction in ocean planning.
Abstract: Bringing western science and policy together with Traditional Knowledge and values from indigenous communities for ocean planning is lacking and a framework is needed. This article articulates indigenous perspectives about the ocean and a culturally appropriate methodology developed in the Bering Strait region for a visioning process that can be used to bridge western and indigenous value systems. Recommendations for an indigenous approach focused on inclusion, the examination of values, adequate representation, and Tribal direction in ocean planning and policy are made. This approach is needed to move forward on a path to achieving more equitable, sustainable and inclusive ocean planning for the future.
29 citations
TL;DR: Throughout Iñupiaq Alaska, hunting is practiced as a form of care and sovereignty undergirding healthy, resilient, and collective Indigenous futures.
Abstract: At what pace do storytellers represent climate change in the "rapidly changing" Arctic? Popular and scholarly narratives of Indigenous vulnerability too often address climate change as a singular event that reorganizes local lifeworlds in unprecedented ways. On the ground however, contemporary climate impacts, such as "food insecurity," are refracted through a range of simultaneous and cumulative ecological, social, and political structures that can precede and/or unfold slower than climate change. These factors include the intergenerational relations of care within communities, as well as multiple political challenges to their continuance. Throughout Inupiaq Alaska, hunting is practiced as a form of care and sovereignty undergirding healthy, resilient, and collective Indigenous futures.
10 citations
01 Jan 2018
TL;DR: In this paper, Armitage et al. present a review of co-management principles and the missing principle: Respect for Sovereignty, which they call "the missing principle".
Abstract: ....................................................................................................................... ii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ............................................................................................... iv LIST OF TABLES ............................................................................................................. vi LIST OF FIGURES .......................................................................................................... vii CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................... 1 CHAPTER 2: BACKGROUND AND SETTING .............................................................. 8 CHAPTER 3: LITERATURE REVIEW .......................................................................... 18 Review of Co-Management Principles ......................................................................... 22 CHAPTER 4: RESEARCH METHODOLOGY AND METHODS ................................ 35 CHAPTER 5: RESULTS & DISCUSSION .................................................................... 43 Compliance with Design Principles .............................................................................. 43 The Missing Principle: Respect for Sovereignty .......................................................... 93 CHAPTER 6: CONCLUSION .......................................................................................... 96 Summary Table of Armitage Design Principles and Findings ..................................... 98 Recommendations for Consideration .......................................................................... 102 Climate change and other future threats ................................................................. 102 Strengthened education and outreach efforts .......................................................... 102 Traditional Ecological Knowledge ......................................................................... 103 Funding and support from the federal government ................................................. 103 REFERENCES ............................................................................................................... 105 APPENDIX ..................................................................................................................... 111
5 citations
TL;DR: The transformation of K'iis Xaadas relations with sockeye salmon from the 19th into the 21st century was traced in this paper, with a discussion of contemporary efforts to reestablish a tribal form of stewardship with sockeyes.
Abstract: K’iis Xaadas (Kaigani Haida) of the southern Prince of Wales Archipelago have deep relationships with sockeye salmon with whom they share the waters of the region. Sockeye are central to K’iis Xaadas residents of Hydaburg, Alaska, as daily food, ceremonial food, gifts to family and friends, commercial exchange, and customary trade and are a key component of cultural symbolism that provides an iconic indication of the status of the K’iis Xaadas as distinct people. This relationship was originally founded at the time of European contact on lineage leaders’ stream supervision and harvest decision-making coupled with a relationship grounded in a mythic charter of shared spiritual personhood. In the late 19th century, traditional principles were challenged and ultimately compromised as commercial exploitation of sockeye salmon by Euroamerican processors resulted in major decimations to the sockeye runs. This paper will trace the transformations of K’iis Xaadas relations with sockeye from the 19th into the 21st century culminating with a discussion of contemporary efforts to reestablish a tribal form of stewardship with sockeye salmon that has parallels with other Indigenous efforts elsewhere along the northwest coast of North America.
2 citations