David Hullen of the Anchorage Daily News: "The Alaska Legislature brought state fish and game laws back into compliance with ANILCA. Unlike the1978 law, the 1986 law defined subsistence fishing and hunting as activities that can be undertaken only by rural residents. A rural area is described as a community in which subsistence is a principal characteristic of the local economy. The 1986 law required the boards of fish and game to decide what portion of each fish and game stock can be taken consistent with the standard of sustained yield, and then to determine how much is needed to satisfy all subsistence needs. If there's any left over, it can be used by others. even among subsistence users, the boards must set up priorities during times of shortage:

-Those with customary and direct dependence as their mainstay of livelihood get first choice;

-Those that live in the area come second;

-Those who have alternatives to wild fish and game for food come third."

Scott Ogan, representative in the Alaska State Legislature, House District 27: This new law limited subsistence to rural residents, rural being defined as "noncommercial, customary and traditional use of fish or game for personal or family consumption is a principal characteristic of the economy..." In the state superior court, the McDowell suit [was] amended to challenge the new subsistence law. The Kenaitze Indian tribe also file[d] a suit in federal court under ANILCA to protest the classification by the Boards of the Kenai Peninsula as an urban area.