WC is on the road as April ends, looking for birds and ogling rocks. So this month end summary is a little shorter than it might be otherwise. But travel or not, it’s time to check what WC overlooked, mis-reported or didn’t rate a full post. Here’s a journalism-free look in the rearview mirror.
Writing in response to the subsistence BUCIP, a reader points out that there is no “Native” preference in the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act. That’s accurate, but it’s been written in by case law interpreting the statute. What ANICA says, at §3114 is,
§3114. Preference for subsistence uses
Except as otherwise provided in this Act and other Federal laws, the taking on public lands of fish and wildlife for nonwasteful subsistence uses shall be accorded priority over the taking on such lands of fish and wildlife for other purposes. Whenever it is necessary to restrict the taking of populations of fish and wildlife on such lands for subsistence uses in order to protect the continued viability of such populations, or to continue such uses, such priority shall be implemented through appropriate limitations based on the application of the following criteria:
(1) customary and direct dependence upon the populations [of fish and game] as the mainstay of livelihood;
(2) local residency; and
(3) the availability of alternative resources.
“Subsistence uses” is defined at §3113 as
[T]he customary and traditional uses by rural Alaska residents of wild, renewable resources for direct personal or family consumption as food, shelter, fuel, clothing, tools, or transportation; for the making and selling of handicraft articles out of nonedible byproducts of fish and wildlife resources taken for personal or family consumption; for barter, or sharing for personal or family consumption; and for customary trade.
It’s hard to claim with a straight face that whites, living in a rural village, have a “customary and direct dependence” of subsistence resources, or that it is a “mainstay of their livelihood” in most cases. Appellate courts have noted those realities and largely granted those subsistence preferences to Alaska Natives. Those Alaska Natives who have moved to urban Alaska are disqualified because they have “alternative resources.”
You can take WC’s reader’s view as further evidence that subsistence is indeed a BUCIP. WC promises not to write about subsistence again any time soon.
The Anchorage Daily News, reporting on the Alaskans’ Rich Republican Convention – $325 at the door to get in – in Anchorage this month, quotes outgoing Republican State Chair Ann Brown as saying,
This is not the time for intra-party bickering and nitpicking about one or the other Republican congressional candidates. If Republican voters had done as the party advocated in 2022 and voted for Begich one and Palin two or vice versa, Mary Peltola would not be in D.C. playing Princess Leia of the U.S. House today.
“Playing Princess Leia”? Brown is accusing Rep. Pelota of acting like the most powerful woman in the Star Wars legendarium and Brown thinks that’s bad? Or she doesn’t like Rep. Peltola’s hair style? Or maybe she’s just bad-mouthing the late Carrie Fisher? Oh, and by the way Ann Brown, your arithmetic is bad; Pelota won the popular vote in the general election.
WC had planned a “worst of” for the recently concluded session of the Idaho state legislature, only to discover that WC’s buddy Jerry Scheid and his wife, Carrie Scheid, had already done it. The Scheids have a B.I.L.E. (Bad Idaho Legislative Effort) and a F.L.U.B. (Foolish Legislative Utterances of Blunders) and you should read their excellent essay. The Best in Show BILE went to Heather Scott (R, Nutjobs) for her anti-cannibalism bill, previously reported here at Wickersham’s Conscience. As Rep. Ilana Rubel (D, Boise) noted, the instances of cannibalism are rare, or at least medium rare. The Best in Show FLUB went to to Sen. Dan Foreman (R, Moscow). During the debate over whether the state senate should condemn the recent racist incident against the University of Utah women’s basketball team, he announced he would fully support the resolution but would not apologize. He said, “I just felt compelled to stress that point that we as a state have nothing to apologize for to anyone.” Q.E.D.
What looks like a victory for those of us opposing Pebble Mine is at best a draw and at worst a slight loss. One of the salmon supporters’ victories was persuading the U.S., Army Corps of Engineers that the mammoth Pebble Mine “would cause significant degradation to the Koktuli River Watershed,” an important salmon habitat, and that the project “would also be contrary to the public’s interest.” The Corps therefore denied Pebble a mining permit. Pebble Partnership appealed the Corps decision. The first step in that appeal is to a higher level inside the Corps. The Corps denied Pebble’s appeal, but not on the merits. Instead, the Corps concluded the EPA’s denial of a water permit under §404(c) trumped the Corps’ jurisdiction, and dismissed Pebble’s appeal without prejudice. As a result, what had been two administrative agencies denying Pebble permission to mine is now just one, the EPA decision. Technically, if the EPA decision is reversed the Corps could still deny its permit, but that’s unlikely: it involves many of the same issues. WC notes that the Corps’ record of decision might challenge the trophy for most acronyms per paragraph. At several points in the formal decision, there are more consecutive acronyms than words (“the POD’s AD, the EPA decision that impact of PLP on the SFK, NFK, and UTC watersheds”).
There’s a report of a whippoorwill just down the road. WC’s gotta go.
Wickersham's Conscience 
You must be logged in to post a comment.