16 



waters were and continue to be significant in the daily life of the 

 people of the Sitka Tribe. 



As a matter of law, the Sitka Tribal Council, as the governing 

 body of the Sitka Tribe, is bound by the constitution of the tribe 

 to protect the natural and cultural resources within the customary 

 and traditional territory for its tribal citizens. These natural and 

 cultural resources include subsistence foods and wildlife, sites of 

 historic and cultural significance, and Native land allotments with- 

 in the Tongass National Forest. 



The Sitka Tribe opposes H.R. 2413 because the State of Alaska 

 has, as a general practice, historically and continuously dem- 

 onstrated disregard — and at times outright contempt — for these 

 cultural and natural resources interests of the Native community. 

 The Sitka Tribe opposes H.R. 2413 because of the governmental 

 hostility, disrespect, and uncertainty that State ownership would 

 bring to Native interest in the Tongass National Forest. 



Governmental hostility of the State of Alaska has demonstrated 

 a historic and continuous hostility toward Native interests in the 

 Tongass National Forest. This hostility stems from the fact that 

 the governmental power exercised by the State of Alaska over nat- 

 ural and cultural resources is within the same sphere of govern- 

 mental interest exercised by the Sitka Tribe. One absolutely nec- 

 essary role of the Federal Government in the Tongass is to ensure 

 that the relatively stronger government of the State of Alaska does 

 not entirely swallow the relatively weaker government of the Sitka 

 Tribe. 



Disrespect: The State of Alaska has demonstrated an historic and 

 continuous disrespect for Native values associated with use and oc- 

 cupancy of the Tongass National Forest. Under the law of the Alas- 

 ka National Interest Lands Conservation Act and the State's own 

 subsistence laws customary and traditional use of resources by the 

 people of Sitke have a priority use above all others. However, Alas- 

 ka has unjustifiably and repeatedly failed to find that species such 

 as king, coho and other species of salmon are customary and tradi- 

 tional foods in Sitka. 



Uncertainty: The State of Alaska has demonstrated a historic 

 and continuous pattern of uncertain dealings with Native interest 

 in the Tongass National Forest. The recognition of the tribal gov- 

 ernments and subsistence rights of tribal citizens by the State of 

 Alaska fluctuates with the election returns. It would be a gross in- 

 justice to subject Native rights from year to year to the political 

 whims of a newly elected administration and legislature. It is true 

 that Governor IGiowles has demonstrated respect and concern for 

 Native rights and interests, but it is far from certain that the next 

 administration will carry out and enforce such enlightened policies. 



Although management of the Tongass by the Federal Govern- 

 ment under the U.S. Forest Service has been far from perfect, in 

 recent times this Federal Government agency has for the most part 

 shown a high degree of government respect and certainty in deal- 

 ing with Native governments and interests. Indeed, the Federal 

 Government is under a legal and Constitutional trust obligation to 

 protect Native rights and interests. The State government is under 

 no such obligation. 



