Bibliography
1Wolfe, Robert J. and Walker J., "Subsistence Economies in Alaska: Productivity, Geography and Development Impacts," Arctic Anthropology, Vol. 24, No. 2, 1987, pp. 56-81. (This article is the source of data and conclusions, through the middle of page 5 of this text, on community harvests, geography of harvest levels, geography of species taken, predominance of fishing, urban distance correlation, transportation infrastructure correlation, non-Native settlement correlation and cash income correlation.)
2Wolfe and Walker (1987) Also: Wolfe, Robert J. and Walker, Robert J., "Subsistence and Income in Rural Alaska," Unpublished Paper, Subsistence Division, Alaska Department of Fish and Game, April 1986. Also: Kruse, John A., "Alaska Inupiat Subsistence and Wage Employment Patterns: Understanding Individual Choice," Human Organization, Vol. 50, No. 4, 1991.
3Kruse (1991( Also: Wolfe and Walker (1986(
4Wolfe and Walker (1986)
5Wolfe, Robert J., "Resource Diversity as a Characteristic of Subsistence Uses," Unpublished Paper, Subsistence Division, Alaska Department of Fish and Game, December 1991.
6Wolfe, Robert J., "The Super-Household: Specialization in Subsistence Economies,' Paper for 14th Annual Meeting, Alaska Anthropological Association, March 1987.
7Subsistence Division, Alaska Department of Fish and Game, "Community Size, Economy and Number of Subsistence Users," Unpublished Paper, January 1992.
8Ibid., pp 1-2
9Ibid., pp. 2-4
11Subsistence Division, Alaska Department of Fish and Game, "Food Harvest Levels by Alaskan Community and Individual," Unpublished Paper, September 15, 1991. Also: Research and Analysis, Alaska Department of Labor, 'Alaska Population by Sex, Race and Hispanic Origin: 1990 Census," June 1991. Also: Census Bureau, U.S. Department of Commerce, '1990 Census of Population and Housing: Summary of Social, Economic and Housing Characteristics," CPH-5-3, April 1992. See Also: Bureau of Indian Affairs (Juneau Area Office/, 'Directory of Alaska tribal Entities," July 20, 1992.
12John Shively, October 28, 1991.
13 S.35, Section 2(a)(7), 92nd Congress, 1st Session, 117 Congressional Record, 38,290, 1971.
14Conference Report #746, 92nd Congress, 1st Session, 1971, p. 37.
15Ch. 151 SLA 1978.
16Senate Report #413, 96th Congress, 1st Session, 1979, p. 233.
17P.L. 96-487, December 2, 1980 (94 Stat. 2371 /.
18lbid.
19S A.A.C. 99.010
21Ch. 52 SLA 1986; A.S. 16.05.940.
22State of Alaska, Division of Elections, Sample Measure Ballot, General Election, November 2, 1982, Ballot Measure No.7, Initiative No. 80-08.
23State of Alaska, Division of Elections, General Election, November 2, 1982, Bonds and measures, pp. 022.00001 - 022.00007.
24Kenaitze Indian Tribe v. State of Alaska, No. A86-367.
25Kenaitze Indian Tribe v. State of Alaska, 860 F. 2d 312, (9th Cir. 1988).
26House Report No. 1045 (Interior Committee on H.R. 39), 95th Congress, 2nd Session, Part I (1978), p. 187.
27Opinion 3540, December 22, 1989, McDowell v. State of Alaska, Supreme Court File S-2732; 785 P. 2d 1 (Alaska 1989).
28Alaska Superior Court (Third Judicial District, Palmer), Memorandum of Decision Severing Unconstitutional Portions of statute from Remainder of Statute, Case No. 3AN-83-1592 Civil, June 20, 1990.
39Sam E. McDowell, et al., v. United States, F90-034 Civil (1990).
30Sixteenth Alaska Legislature, Second Session. See, among other bills, HJR 88 (Governor), SCR 39, H.B. 415, HJR 74, HJR 90.
31See Lujan speeches to Subsistence Summit of Alaska Federation of Natives (April 10, 1990) and Anchorage Chamber of Commerce (April 11, 1990). See also Lujan: June 20, 1990 letter to Governor Cowper.
3250 CFR Part 36, Federal Register, Vol. 55, No. 72, April 13, 1990.
33Dittman Research Corporation, March 13-18, 1990, unsponsored random statewide phone poll of 547 respondents, (4.5% margin of error/: 51% supporting constitutional amendment, 34% opposing, 15% undecided. Reported by Associated Press, April 3, 1990.
34Lujan, Manuel J., U.S. Secretary of the Interior, to Governor Steve Cowper, June 20, 1990.
35June 22, 1990 letter from Governor Steve Cowper to House Speaker Sam Cotton, containing unnumbered House Joint Resolution to be introduced by the Rules Committee at the request of the Governor.
36Anchorage Daily News, Friday, June 29, 1990.
37Anchorage Daily News and Anchorage Times, Tuesday, June 26, 1990.
38Office of the Governor, Legislation and Sectional Analysis: Work Draft, September 13, 1991.
39Alaska Federation of Natives, 1991 Annual Convention, Resolution 91-01.
40S.B. 443 and H.B. 552, Second Session, Seventeenth Alaska Legislature.
41State of Alaska, Legislative Affairs Agency, Division of Legal Services, memorandum from Legislative Counsel George Utermohle to Senator Lyman Hoffman, March 16, 1992
42H.B. 592, Second Session, Seventeenth Alaska Legislature.
43HJR 77/SJR 50 (MacLean/Adams), HJR 78 (Ivan/, HJR 79/SJR 49 (Lincoln/Hoffman/, Second Session, Seventeenth Alaska Legislature.
44Anchorage Times, June I, 1992, p. BI, "Senator Offers Subsistence Strategy."
45Anchorage Daily News, June 16, 1992, AP Wire, "Nickel Pushes Subsistence Bill; Special Session Gas Under Way."
46June 12, 1992 Memorandum to Carl Rosier, Commissioner, Alaska Department of Fish and Game, from Lance B. Nelson and Cheri L. Jacobus, Assistant Attorney General, Alaska Department of Law, File No. 661-92-0716.
47AS 16.05.258(c), Section 2.
48AS 16.05.258(a), (b), (f), and AS 16.05.940(36).
49AS 16.05.940(37).
50Kenaitze Indian Tribe v. State of Alaska, 3AN-91-4569 Civil, Order, October 26, 1993.
51Sam McDowell, et al. v. United States, F90-34 Civil, Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief, U.S. District Court, June 22, 1990.
52Sam McDowell, et al. v. United States, A92-531 Civil, Order, U.S. District Court, October 06, 1992.
53Morry v. State of Alaska, 2 BA-83-87 Civil.
54Katie John, et. al. v. United States, No. A90-484 Civil, now consolidated with State v. Babbitt, No. A-92-0264 Civil, and other subsistence jurisdiction cases.
55Native American Rights Fund, "Petition for Rule-Making by the Secretaries of the Interior and Agriculture That Navigable Waters and Federal Reserved Waters are 'Public Lands' Subject to Title VIII of ANILCA's Subsistence Priority," July 15, 1993.
56State of Alaska v. Lujan (now State of Alaska v. Babbitt/, No. A-92-264 Civil, February 27, 1992, now consolidated with Katie john, et. al. v. United States and other subsistence jurisdiction cases.
57Katie John, et. al, v. United States, No. A90-0484 Civil, consolidated with State of Alaska v. Babbitt, No. A920264 Civil, Decision, March 30, 1994. See also Stay Order of same date.
1See, generally, D. Case, Alaska Natives and American Laws 60-70 (1984)("Case'/(Case analyzes a long series of conflicting court decisions regarding the federal government's duty to protect aboriginal use and occupancy of lands in Alaska).
2See e.g., Chilkat Indian Village v. Johnson, 870 F. 2d 1469 (9th Cit. 1989)/upholding federal jurisdiction over a tribe's determination of the ownership and disposition of Tlingit clan property held by a non-Native); Chilkat Indian Village v. Johnson, Memorandum and Order, slip op. at 9-10 (D. Alaska, Jan. 11, 1990)(on remand from the 9th Circuit, holding that the village possessed sufficient attributes of sovereignty such that "the district court must abstain from hearing the suit until the parties exhaust tribal remedies"/; Chilkat Indian Village, I.R.A. v. Johnson No. 90-01 (Chilkat Indian Village Tribal Court, November 3, 1993)(seventy-one page tribal court opinion upholds the authority of the IRA tribal council to prevent removal of resident member clan property from the village without the tribe's consent and orders the non-Native defendant art dealer to return the property to the village); Native Village of Tyonek v. Puckett, 957 F.2d 631 /9th Cir. 1992)(remanding to the federal district court to develop findings of fact and conclusions of law backing its finding that the village is a tribe occupying Indian country where land in the village is principally under village corporation ownership and the tribe seeks to control access to and use of residential tribal property); State of Alaska v. Native Village of Venetie, 856 F.2d 1384 (9th Cir. 1988)(in a case involving the power of a tribe to tax business activities in a Native village where land is principally owned by the tribe, the court held that the tribal and Indian country status of Alaska Native villages are to be resolved under general federal Indian law standards); Alyeska v. Kluti Kaah Native Village of Copper Center, No. A87-201 Civil (D. Alaska)(this case concerns the power of a tribe to tax property in a Native village where most lands are owned by a merged ANCSA regional corporation).
3The term "Indian" as used in federal Indian law refers to individuals "whose ancestors lived in what is now the
United States before its discovery by Europeans, and ... that the individual is recognized as an Indian by his or her
tribe or community." See, Felix S. Cohen Handbook of Federal Indian Law 20 (1982 ed.)/"Cohen"). The term
includes Alaska Natives /Eskimos Aleuts and Indians) either directly, see e.g., 25 C.F.R. § 103.1 (c) and (d) or
indirectly by the inclusion of Alaska Native villages in the definition of "Indian tribe". See e. g- 25 U.S.C. § 450b
(d) and /ej.
4Montoya v. United States, 180 U.S. 261, 266 (1901/. Although this ethnological definition of a tribe constitutes the most basic variety of a tribe, the United States exercises much broader discretion to recognize the sovereign status of tribal confederations, remnants or subgroups of tribes, and reorganized tribes, to name just a few. See, Cohen at 231, n. 17.
5Long a bone of contention, the Secretary of the Interior finally clarified the sovereign tribal status of Alaska Native villages in Alaska. "Native Entities Within the State of Alaska Recognized and Eligible To Receive Services From the United States Bureau of Indian Affairs," 58 Fed. Reg. 54,364 (October 21, 1993).
6United States v. Rickert, 188 U.S. 432, 445 ti903); See generally, Baker v. Care, 369 U.S. 186 1962).' United States District Court Judge Russell Holland, citing the Secretary of the Interior's recent publication of an Alaska tribal list, dismissed the defendant Kluti Kaah Native Village of Copper Center from a 'case on the grounds of sovereign immunity based on the fact that "(pJlaintiff and intervenor-plaintiffs concede, as they must at this point, that the executive branch of government of the United State has declared that defendant Kluti Kaah Native Village of Copper Center is an Indian tribe.' Order (Tribal Status), Alyeska Pipeline Service Company, et al., v. Kluti Kaah Native Village of Copper Center, et al., No. A7-0201-CV (December 22, 1993).
7See e.g., S. 1618, An "Amendment offered by [Sen.) Murkowski to restore the Central Council of Tlingit and Haida Indian Tribes of Alaska to the Department of the Interior list of Indian entities recognized and eligible to receive Services from the United States Bureau of Indian Affairs," United States Senate Natural Resources Comm. (Nov. 1993); See also, Consolidating Alaska Natives Governing Bodies: Hearings on S. 1920 and S. 2046 Before the United States Senate Select Comm. on Indian Affairs, 95th Cong., 1st Sess. (1977).
8Although Katie John, Doris Charles and Mentasta Village Council v. United States and Alaska, No. A90-484 (D. Alaska), is not generally referred to as a tribal sovereignty case, the gist of this subsistence dispute involves the determination of the definition of "public lands" and the scope of the federal government's duty to protect Native and non-Native subsistence values--elements common to battles between states and the federal government regarding the scope of federal authority to protect Native rights and interests.
9The Bush Administration's Interior Solicitor concluded that little if any Indian Country exists in Alaska. "Governmental Jurisdiction of Alaska Native Villages Over Land and Nonmembers," Opinion No. M-36975 (Jan. 11 1993/("Solicitor's Opinion'), but see, Letter from Michael J. Anderson Associate Solicitor, Division of Indian Affairs, Office of the Solicitor to Michael Cox, General Counsel, National Indian Gaming Commission (November 15, 1993J(stating that tribal canneries located in three southeast villages are Indian Country for purposes of the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act.); See also federal district court cases cited at sepia note 1.
10The first opportunity for such a conflict may occur in Klawock, where the local IRA recently notified the State of Alaska of its intent to negotiate a Class III gaming compact with the State pursuant to the Federal Indian Gaming Regulatory Act. The State has 180 days to respond. Telephone interview with Roseann Demmert, President, Klawock Cooperative Association (December 13,1993).
11See e.g., Federal Field Committee for Development Planning in Alaska, Alaska Natives and the Land / 19b8J; Robert R. Nathan Associates, Inc., 2(cl Report: Federal Programs and Alaska Natives (1975(; American Indian Policy Review Commission, Special joint Task Force Report on Alaska Native Issues /1976/; R. Arnold, Alaska Native Land Claims (1978 ed.J; Alaska State Legislature, Local Government Study (August 4, 1979); State of Alaska, Problems and Possibilities for Service Delivery and Government in the Alaska Unorganized Borough (1981); Cohen, "Chapter 14. Special Groups, Section A. Alaska Natives," 739-770 (1982 ed.J; State of Alaska, Legal
12F. Cohen, "The Spanish Origin of Indian Rights in the Law of the United States," reprinted in The Legal Conscience Selected Papers of Felix S. Cohen 230- 252 (Archon Books, 1970)("Cohen, The Spanish Origin"J.
13See, Cohen at 50-58.
14Federal Indian law and policy is just that - federal law. Federal Indian laws may impact and at times limits tribal law, but dots not include tribal law or tribal actions any more than it includes state laws and policies. Tribal laws, court decisions and administrative practices are considered the actions of a separate sovereign. Talton v. Mayes, 164 U.S. 376 (1896). .
15D. Case, Alaska Natives and American Laws, 16 (1984)("Case").
16The following federal statutes include Alaska Native villages in the definition of "Indian Tribe": Indian Financing Act of 1974, 25 U.S.C. § 1452(c); Indian Self-Determination Act and Education Assistance Act of 1975, 25 U.S.C. § 450b(b); Indian Health Care Improvement Act of 1976 25 U_S.C. § 1603(c); Tribally Controlled Community College Assistance Act, 25 U.S.C. § 1801(2); Indian Child Welfare Act, 25 U.S.C. § 1903(8); Title XI of the Education Amendments of 1978, 25 U.S.C. § 2019/10); State and Local Fiscal Assistance k,-,t, 31 U:S.C. § 1227(b)(4) and (d).
Federal regulations which define "Indian tribes' to include Alaska Native villages are the foll• -ing: 25 C.F.R §
256.2(f)(2)(Snyder Act, 25 U.S.C. § 13); 25 C.F.R. § 23.2(i)(Indian Child Welfare Act); 25 C.F.R§ §32.2(e) and
(d), 32.3, 392(o)(Title XI of the Education Amendments of 1978); 25 C.F.R. § 41.3(i)/Tribally Controlled Community
College Assistance Act); 25 C.F.R. §§ 101.1(eJ, (f) and (g), 103.1(e), (f), and (g), 286.1(g),~(h), and (i)(Indian Financing
Act); 25 C.F.R. §§ 271.2(h), 272.2(j), 2743(j), 2752(f), 276.1(i), 2773(g)(Indian Self-Determination and Education
Assistance Act); 25 C.F.R. § 273.2(gj(Johnson-O'Malley Act); 45 C.F.R. § 1328.3 (Older Americans Act, 42 U.S.C. §
3057); 45 C.F.R. 96.44(b) (Low Income Home Energy Assistance Act of 1981, 42 U.S.C. § 8623(dj(1)); 24 C.F.R. §
571.3(o)(Housing and Community Development Act, 42 U.S.C § 5302(a)(17J); 20 C.F.R. § 68$10 and 29 C.F.R. §§
96.42 and 97.103 (Comprehensive Employment and Training Act, 29 U.S.C. § 801) 34 C.F.R: § 250.4(b)(lndian
Education Act, 20 U.S.C. §§ 241aa et seq., and 3385 et seq.); 34 C.F.R. § 371.4(b)(3) (Rehabilitation, Comprehensive
Services, and Developmental Disabilities Amendments of 1978, 29 U.S.C. § 750); 34 C.F.R. § 408.203(a)(Vocational
Education Act, 20 U.S.C. § 2303); 7 C.F.R. § 1823.402(b)(Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act 7 U.S.C.
§ 1989); 40 C.F.R. § 35.751(c) (Federal Insecticide Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act, 7 U.S.C. § 136); 42 C.F.R. §
36.21 (Snyder Act, 25 U.S.C. § 13j; 42 C.F.R. §§ 36.102(c) and 36.204(gj(Indian Self-Determination and Education
Assistance Act); 42 C.F.R. §36.302(j)/Indian Health Care Improvement Act); 45 C.F.R. § 1336.1 (Native American
Programs Act of 1974 42 U.S.C. § 2991); and 10 C.F.R. § 440.3 (Energy Conservation in Existing Buildings Act of
1976, 42 U.S.C. § 6863).
17"The Spanish Origin of Indian Rights in :he Law of the United States" in The Legal Conscience; Selected Papers of Felix S. Cohen 232 (1970).
18Tribes can no longer enter into international relations, _Worcester v. Georgia, 31 U.S. (6 Pet.) 515 (1832), or freely alienate lands in which the United States retains an interest. Johnson v. McIntosh, 21 U.S. (8 Wheat) 543'1823), Cherokee Nation v. Georgia, 30 U.S. (5 Pet.) 1 (1831)[Indian tribes are not "foreign nations," but instead are more property referred to as 'domestic dependent nations"). Finally, Indian tribes are not considered to have inherent jurisdiction to try and punish non-Indians." Oliphant v. Suguamish Indian Tribe, 435 U.S. 191(1978)(Indian tribes cannot exercise criminal jurisdiction over non-Indians).
19Williams v. Lee, 358 U.S. 217 (1959/. Federal laws maintain this effect through the Supremacy Clause which states that treaties and federal laws are 'the Supreme Law of the land' notwithstanding contrary state constitutions and laws.
20McClanahan v. Arizona State Tax Commission, 411 U.S. 164 [1973).
21Tribal territory or 'Indian country' is not limited to Indian reservations. Indian country includes Indian reservations, Indian allotments, and dependent Indian communities. 18 U.S.C. § 1151 (bj. The Indian Country statute sets out the limits of federal criminal jurisdiction on Indian lands, but courts also apply it to civil jurisdiction. State of Alaska v. Native Village of Venetie, 856 F.2d 1384, 1390 (9th Cir. 1988), citing California v. Cabazon Band of Mission Indians, 480 U.S. 202 (1987).
22United states constitutional limitations which constrain federal and state action-such as the requirement of a republican form of government, the doctrine of separation of powers, and the rule against establishment of religion--do not hinder tribal activities. Cohen at 247.
23The Congress can establish eligibility criteria for federal program purposes and for the purposes of distributing property under federal control. Congress can even establish or modify tribal membership criteria if it does so clearly, but has done so only rarely and not lately. Cohen at 248. Tribes are unfettered by United States constitutional provisions in establishing criteria for membership. Santa Clam Pucblô v. Martinez, 436 U.S. 49 (1978 J.
24Tribes can enact criminal and civil laws that apply to all internal affairs. The Indian Civil Rights Act, 25 U.S.C. § 1302(7), limits tribal criminal sanctions to a maximum fine of $ 5,000 and a sentence of one year.
25The Indian Civil Rights Act imposes limited procedural requirements on tribal courts and police, including protection against unreasonable searches and seizures, probable cause requirements for warrants, protection against double jeopardy, protection against being a witness against oneself, guarantee of a speedy trial, right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation the right to confront witnesses, right to subpoena witnesses right to an attorney paid for by oneself, and the right to a jury trial in a criminal case. 25 U.S.C. § 1302. Tribal jurisdiction is concurrent with the federal courts on most reservations. The Congress has delegated its criminal jurisdiction and cause of action civil jurisdiction to some of the states pursuant to Public Law 280. Act of Aug. 15 1953, ch. SOS, 67 Stat. 588 (codified as amended at 18 U.S.C. § 1162, 25 U.S.C. §§ 1321-1326, 28 U.S.C. § 1360, 1360 note).
26Tribes possess inherent authority to exclude persons from tribal territory. Persons holding fee title to lands within tribal territory may not be excluded, but may be 'subject to reasonable regulation by the tribe if a significant tribal interest, such as health and safety, requires that access be limited." Cohen at 252, n. 86; Montana v. United States, 450 U.S. 544 (1981).
27See e.g.. McClanahan v. Arizona State Tax Commission, 411 U.S. 164, 172 n. 7(1973).
28U.S. Const. Art. II, §2, cl. 2; Montana v. Mancari, 417 U.S. 535, 553 n. 24 (1974).
29U.S. Const. art. VI, cl. 2; Bryan v. Itasca County, 426 U.S. 373 /1976/.
30U.S. Const. Arc. I §8, cl. 3; United States v. 43 Gallons of Whiskey, 93 U.S. 188, 195 (1876).
31Act of July 22, 1790, ch. 33 § 4, 1 Stat. 137. The modern successor to the Nonintercourse Acts is now codified at 25 U.S.C. § 177.
32Appropriation Act of March 3, 1871, Ch. 120 §1, 16 Stat. 544, 566 (codified at 25 U.S.C. §71). By this time, the House of Representatives had grown tired of living with the results of federal Indian policies carried out by the Senate and President through their treaty making authority. F. Prucha, American Indian Policy in Crisis, 67-70 (Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 1976).
33Plenary is defined as "complete in all respects; unlimited or full." American Heritage Electronic Dictionary, Standard Ed. (1992).
34Delaware Tribal Business Comm. v. Weeks, 430 U.S. 73, B3-84 (1977).
35Payments must be made to Indians for the taking of permanent property rights protected by the 5th Amendment. Shoshone Tribe v. United States 299 U.S. 476 (1937J.
3625 U.S.C. § 1901 et seg.
37Supra note 21, 18 U.S.C. § 1151 (b).
38Worcestor v. Georgia, 31 U.S. (6 Pet.) 515 (1832/. _
39Cherokee Nation v. Georgia, 30 U.S. (5 Pet.) 1 (1831)(indian tribes are "in a state of pupilage...)and) their relationship to the United States resembles that of a ward to his guardian.") Worcestor v. Georgia, 31 U.S. (6 Pet.) 515 (1832). Whew the United States has assumed a duty to manage, the highest fiduciary standards apply. Seminole Nation v. United States, 316 U.S. 286 (1942/.
40The recent tendency is against finding generic trust duties in favor of those defined by Congress. White v. Califano, 437 F. Supp. 543 (D.C. S.D. 1977) aff'd. sub nom white v. Matthews, 420 F. Supp. 882 (D.C. S.D. 1976), aff'd. her curiam 581 F. 2d 697 (8th Cir. 1978).
41Cohen at 673-678 /describing the change in federal service delivery from the non-intercourse acts to the "Great Society" programs.
42Act of June 2, 1924, ch. 233, 43 Star. 253.
43"...There is a very real sense in which it can be said that no provision of law ever completely disappears. This is particularly true in the field of Indian law. At every session of the Supreme Court, cases arise in which the validity of present claims depends upon what the law was on a particular point in some earlier period. Laws long repealed have created legal rights which endure and which can be understood only by reference to repealed legislation. Thus in studying Indian law one cannot rest with a collection of laws still in force, but must constantly refer to legislation that has been repealed, amended, or superseded." Cohen at 2.
44Whereas early court decisions like Worcester defended the integrity of Indian tribes and their lands, later judicial decisions legitimized unilateral termination of Indian treaty rights, Rosebud Sioux Tribe v. Kneip, 430 U.S. 534, 594 (1977( and takings of aboriginal lands without compensation, Tee Hit Ton Indians v. United States. 348 U.S. 272 (1955).
45Case at 6; See generally, Cohen at 642-645.
46One federal education statute allowed the children of mixed blood Natives loading "a civilized life" to attend schools attended by non-Native children. Courts of the day prevented mix blood Native children from attending white schools if they continued merely to associate with Natives. Davis v. Sitka School Board. 3 Ak. Rpts. 481 (1908 ).
47The ANB was founded in 1912 as one of the first Indian civil rights organizations. The ANB originally promoted citizenship, Indian education and abolition of those aboriginal customs that impeded the advancement of Indians. The ANB's initial ambivalence to tribalism carried over to modem attempts to revive tribes under the Indian Reorganization Act. See, "The Alaska Native Brotherhood and IRA's" in Naats'kcek, This is Yakutat 47-49 (Kadashan Enterprises, Yakutat, 1992/.
48Niedermeyer, Note, "The True Interests of a White Population": The Alaska Indian Country Decisions of Matthew P. Deady, 21 N.Y.U. J. Int'I L. & Pol. 195 (1988). The cases included in re Can, 5 F. Cas. 115 (D. Or. 1875; Waters v. Campbell, 29 F. Cas. 411 (C.C.C. Or. 1876); United States. Williams, 2 F. 61 (D. Or. 1880); United States v. Stephens, 12 F. 52 (D. Or. 1882); Kie v. United States, 27 F. 351 (D. Or. 1886/; and Nelson v. U.S.,30 F. 12 (C.C.C. D. 1887).
49Sutter v. Heckman, 1 Ak. Rpts. 188 (D.C. Ak 1901).
50U.S. v. BerriRan, 2 Ak. Rpts. 442 (D.C. Ak 1904).
51Miller v. U.S., 159 F.2d 997 (9th Cir. 1947).
52Tee-Hit-Ton Band of Indians v. U.S., 348 U.S. 272 (1955).
53In re McCord, 151 F. Supp. 132 (D.C. Ak. 1957).
54Tlingit and Haida Indians of Alaska v. U.S., 1,77 F. Supp. 452 (Ct. Cl. 1959).
55State of Alaska v. Udall, 420 F.2d 938 (9th Cir. 1969).
56See, Cohen at 152-180.
57See, 12 U.S.C. § 1162 (criminal jurisdiction); 28 U.S.C. § 1360 (civil jurisdiction); and 25 U.S.C. §§ 137.1-1326 (Indian Civil Rights Act, amendment).
58The second recommendation pointed out: "2. The desirability of providing for State-licensed business organizations in the native communities as an alternative to the granting of Federal charters." Report to the Secretary of the Interior by the Task Force on Alaska Native Affairs at 87.
59See, Cohen at 180-184.
61See, Case at 389-391.
62See, Arnold at 93-144.
63Telephone Interview with John Hope, former Tribal Operations Officer (1947-SS, and 1963-80), Juneau Area Office, November 1, 1993.
64Id.
65These programs are described in the Solicitor's Opinion at 38-46. Also see, Case, Ch. 9, "Modem Alaska Native Governments and Organizations."
66Vine Deloria, Jr., and Clifford Lytle discuss the distinction between tribal self-governance and self-determination in their book, The Nations Within 244-264 (1984/: "Self-government is basically a political idea, and it has been superseded in our generation by the demand for self-determination. Indian affairs thus moved beyond political institutions into an arena primarily cultural, religious, and sociological and there are no good guidelines for either policy or programs in this new area of activity."
67American Indian Policy Review Commission, Final Report 95th Cong., 1st Sess. 491 JComm. Print 1977).
68Special Task Force Report on Alaska Native Issues, American Indian Policy Review Commission 23 (1976).
69Opinion letter from Associate Solicitor for Indian Affairs, Thomas Frederick to Edward Weinberg (Sept. 14, 1977).
7047 Fed. Reg. 53,133 (Nov. 24, 1982).
71Chilkat Indian Village v. Johnson, 870 F.2d 1469, 1471 (9th Cir. 1989).
72State of Alaska v. Native Village of Venetie, 856 F.2d 1384 (9th Cir. 1988).
73Native Village of Tyonek v. Puckett, 957 F.2d 631 (9th Cir. 1992).
74Alyeska Pipeline Service Company v. Kl:rti Kaah Native Village of Copper Center, No. A87-201 Civil.
75Blatchford v. Native Village of Noatak, 111 S.Ct. 2578 (1991) rev' Native Village of Noatak v. Hoffman 896 F.2d 1157 (9th Cit. 1990).
76D. Case, The Special Relationship of Alaska Natives to the Federal government (Alaska Native Foundation, 1978).
77T. Berger, Village Tourney The Report of the Alaska Native Review Commission (1985).
78State of Alaska, Report of the Governor's Task Force on Federal-State-Tribal Relations--Submitted to Governor Bill Sheffield (Feb. 14, 1986).
79'Toward Understanding: A Positive View of Federal-State-Tribal Relations (Mar. 31, 1986)(An adaptation of the Governor's Task Force Report on Federal-State-Tribal Relations sponsored by the Rural Alaska Community Action Program, Inc.).
80Native Village of Stevens Village v. Alaska Management & Planning, 757 P.2d 32 (Alaska 1988).
81See, E. Smith & M. Kancewick, The Tribal Status of Alaska Natives, 61 Colo.L.Rev. 455 (1990) and L. Miller, Caught in a Crossfire: Conflict in the Courts, Alaska Tribes in the Balance, Harvard Indian Law Symposium 135 (1989 ).
82The Secretary's statement accompanying the list is subject to a significant caveat: "Sol. Op. M-36,975 concluded, construing general principles of Federal Indian law and ANCSA~ that 'notwithstanding the potential that Indian country exists in Alaska in certain limited cases, Congress has left little or no room for tribes in Alaska to exercise governmental authority over land or nonmembers.' M-36,975 at 108. That portion of the opinion is subject to review, but has not been withdrawn or modified." 58 Fed. Reg. at 54366, n. 1.
83See e.R., Letter of January 14, 1992, from the Alaska Native Coalition and other tribal organizations to Lynn Forcia, Chief, Branch of Acknowledgment and Research, Bureau of Indian Affairs.
8425 C.F.R. part 83.
8525 C.F.R. part 81.
86State of Alaska v. Native Village of Venetie, 856 F.2d 1384 (1988).
87See e.g., R. Price, The Great Father in Alaska: The Case of the Tlingit and Haida Salmon Fishery 87-97 1990).
88See, "The Alaska Native Brotherhood and IRA's" in Naats'keek, This is Yakutat 47-49 (Kadashan Enterprises, Yakutat, 1992).
89See, R. Huhndorf, "IRA councils: finding a model," Anchorage Times, April 3, 1983.
90R. Huhndorf, "President's Message, Social Justice: A time for action" (The CIRI Newsletter, 1993).
91Alaska Federation of Natives, Analysis of Department of Interior Solicitor's Opinion Examining The Issue of Tribal Status and Powers of Alaska Native villages 29 (November 1993)(On Reserve at the National Indian Policy Center, Wash., D.C.).
92See e.g., 26 U.S.C. § 7701 (40) and P.L. 100-241, 101 Stat. 1788.
93See, text at supra note 82.
94Solicitor's Opinion at p. 107.
95Id.
96Id. at 65.
97See, Chilkat Indian Village v. Johnson, 870 F.2d 1469, 1471 (9th Cir. 1989) and Memorandum and Order, )84-024 Civil (October 9, 1990)(Chilkat is a tribe and Klukwan is Indian Country for purpose of determining tribal ownership of clan artifacts in the possession of a non-member notwithstanding ANCSA.); State of Alaska v. Native Village of Venetic, 856 F.2d 1384 (9th Cir. 1988 )(Traditional Indian Country tests apply in Alaska); Order (Tribal Status), A1 ey ska Pipeline Service Company, et al., v. Kluti Kaah Native Village of Copper Cent=, et al., No. A7-0201-CV (December 22, 1993)(ANCSA does not preclude a finding of tribal status or Indian Country).
98(I1n practice most tribes exercise authority only over such matters as tribal membership, elections, referenda, property distribution, and other uniquely internal matters." In essence, tribes would become mere membership organizations rather than governments in any meaningful sense if the Solicitor's view on Indian Country were to prevail.
99See e.R., Venetic IRA v. State of Alaska, 944 F.2d 548 (9th Cir. 1991)(Tribe may exercise domestic relations jurisdiction subject to a finding of tribal status).
100Solicitor's Opinion at 130.
101See e.g., Native Village of Tyonek v. Puckett, 957 F.2d 631 (9th Cir. 1992).
102 Id.
103 Id. at 110-123.
104 Native Village of Stevens Village v. Alaska Management & Planning, 757 P.2d 32, 35-36, n. 4 (Alaska 1988).
105 The State has been consistent in its position from the offset of the sovereignty cases. See, Opinion Letter of July 7, 1982 regarding the Application of the Indian Reorganization Act in Alaska from the State's Attorney General Wilson L. Condon to Lawrence Jensen, Associate Solicitor.
106 Blatchford v. Native Village of Noatak, 111 S.Ct. 2578 (1991) rev' Noatak v. Hoffman, 896 F.2d 1157 (9th Cit. 1990).
107 Department of Community and Regional Affairs, Report and Recommendation to the Local Boundary Commission Petition For Dissolution of the City of Akiachak (June 5, 1989).
108 Id. at 21.
109Native Entities Within the State of Alaska Recognized and Eligible To Receive Services From the United States Bureau of Indian Affairs" pursuant to 25 C.F.R. part 83 on October 21, 1993, 58 Fed Reg. 54,364.
110 Two law review articles analyze the schism between the federal and state courts on the issue of tribal status. E. Smith and M. Kancewich, The Tribal Status of Alaska Natives. 61 Colo. 455 )1990); L. Miller, Caught in a Crossfire: Conflict in the Courts, Alaska Tribes in the Balance, 1989 Harvard Indian Law Symposium (1990).