72 



provide for conservation and subsistence. To us, ANCSA, ANILCA 

 promised to provide economic life for our villages by assuring ac- 

 cess to the resources necessary to drive their economies. The estab- 

 lishment of corporate institutions to act as the initiators of the eco- 

 nomic life in our villages was wrong. The activities of the corpora- 

 tion do not always positively affect the economic health of the vil- 

 lages. The individual prosperity that comes as a result of ANCSA 

 will not assure that the community grows and/or prospers, nor does 

 it assure the growth and development of our Native culture. Only 

 with the healthy, active, credible tribal government can we hope to 

 maintain the tribal heritage and assets left by our ancestors. As 

 Thomas R. Berger wrote: All that I have written in preceding chap- 

 ters reveals the chaos that will result if shares in the villages are 

 to be sold. To accept that as if it was simply a case of exercising 

 personal choice in an ordinary matter of private law is to use the 

 vocabulary of corporate law to obscure the cultural consequences 

 that will ensue in the villages. 



With the enactment of the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act 

 and subsequently ANILCA, the Alaska Natives exchanged the 

 lion's share of the land and resource wealth of aboriginal Alaska 

 and kept for themselves only a minute residue with which to main- 

 tain themselves in the risk-filled currents of the contemporary 

 Alaska economy. The land and resource wealth traded away has al- 

 lowed the non-Native population not only to subsist but to prosper. 

 If ANCSA was not intended to be a termination act, the State of 

 Alaska and the Federal Government ought to be prepared to meet 

 the special needs of our struggling cultures and to accord them the 

 right of access and use of the land and resources necessary to pros- 

 per as members of the Haida tribe. 



The Haida tribe does not agree with the findings of H.R. 2413, 

 that this bill is in the public interest to transfer ownership of the 

 Tongass National Forest to the State of Alaska to be managed and 

 operated under the laws of the State of Alaska. Section 6 is entitled 

 "Transition Provisions Outside the Transition Period," and section 

 (c) addresses subsistence use after the patent date. ANILCA has 

 been the Federal law of the land for 16 years and the State of Alas- 

 ka has yet to comply with the letter of the law. 



Granting them authority over subsistence uses would be error 

 and detrimental to tribal groups. Subsection (e) addresses land 

 grants of Native people and beings by authorizing the State of 

 Alaska to negotiate in good faith with the Native people of Haines, 

 Ketchikan, Petersburg, Tenakee, and Wrangell. The Native people 

 in those communities should take a look at the history of relations 

 between Alaska Natives and the State of Alaska. They should know 

 that the State has never sought to benefit or assist tribal govern- 

 ments or what is good for Natives. We do not think this part of the 

 legislation is well-thought-out or researched. 



We also cannot support the passage of Senate Bill 1877, a bill 

 to give KPC a 15-year extension. 



Thank you. 



The Chairman. Thank you, Vicki. 



One thing I want you to be assured — I thought we wrote it well 

 enough in the bill, but you have an opportunity to make sure that 

 when this bill becomes law, your interests are well-listened-to. 



