tsdc native fishing aff

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 decision 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 federally-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 implementing 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 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 represented 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 federal 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


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 everything 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


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


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 positive 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



The current situation is that in order to, possibly, have their concerns taken into consideration, tribes must participate in two separate processes, neither of which function according to their needs or acknowledge 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 protect 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



An overarching concern that has developed through tribal involvement in the three issues (Chinook and chum bycatch and the NBSRA) is tribal consultation. Tribal attempts at, and participation in, consultation 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 government 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 consultations 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



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 consultation 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 relationship 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 relationship. 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 consultation 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



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

tsdc native fishing aff

Documents