I finally got my account to work! Explorer had issues but I found firefox to work perfectly.
http://www.newsminer.com/view/full_story/8791875/article-Ahtna-Nelchina-caribou-hunt-violates-state-constitution--court-rules?instance=home_lead_story
Also notice the previous stories linked at the bottom of this article before posting a response.
I am most interested in subsistence and what it really means to tradition. Here are some terms that can be perplexing when you compare them. I also have a personal interest in the history of potlatches and how it relates to the utilization of resources today. Who should really be able to control how much of a natural resource is used and to what extent for commercial reasons?
-subsistence
-tradition
-personal use
-tier I and II for identifying hunting/fishing regulations.
I find tradition is the most difficult to explain due to the ever changing cultures that use "tradition" as a purpose for actions. Is there a start and end point for tradition and what kind of modifications can be done to a tradition for it to still be applicable today. For example: using a fish wheel to commercial fish or high speed boats for whaling. The Makah of Washington State are allowed to use a .50 rifle and high horsepower water craft for whale hunting. Their quota is limited but should it be allowed at all knowing that whales are a declining resource?
In the case of whaling endangered whales with high-tech advantages, I am very opposed.
ReplyDeleteThe groups who are granted these rights to hunt regardless of the (endangered) status of the whales, should use traditional technology that was available to them before "outside-contact".
If they use contemporary (power)tools to craft the traditional tools used for hunting, I would still be ok with the hunt.
To use modern tools to fulfill a "traditional hunt" on an endangered species is wrong.
Looking at the bigger picture, if the status of the creature being hunted was not in any critical stage (ex. moose in a highly moose-populated area), than I would presume that modern tools would be ok.
Thanks for taking the time to respond, I have been hoping to see more input on this blog. I am most interested in ethical and historical ideals like this but anything Alaska (or yukon) will do!
ReplyDeleteI believe the original idea of the high powered rifle was to ensure less suffering (more efficient) for the animal being harvested but I still do not agree with the harvest or the techniques for this hunt.
The example of harvesting a moose in a densely populated area on property set aside for cultural traditions is definitely applicable. Does the same hold true for migrating caribou when hunted by a stationary population? In the past the required animals for subsistence was much less. This of course only holds true with the definition of subsistence as a minimalist living with no true ownership of the land or other species occupying it. Today the supplements provided by the more modern world would prove otherwise. I would be afraid nowadays that without the help of a highly budgeted fish and game department and international cooperation the resources would be quickly devastated. I come to this conclusion from previous legal actions and historical incidences. For example by law in Alaska 50% of the subsistence caught fish or harvested animals can be sold commercially by natives. Unfortunately human nature and profit equals killing more.
In Washington state natives who are 1% percent of the population are legally entitled to 50% of the fish from its waters and allowed to harvest 100% from native land and another 50% from private and state land. After allowing these types of arrangements biologists soon discovered it was not sustainable. Laws had to be implemented and enforced in order to maintain a renewable resource. This included not allowing certain types of nets as well as changing the lengths and placement of nets. Along with these changes as well as S.T.E.P (Salmon Trout Enhancement Program) the salmon runs are slowly returning. One great example was the Nisqually River of Washington State. Originally there were limited laws to inhibit fishing techniques. Nets could only extend ¾ of the way across the river. To get around this, nets would extend ¾ of the way across the river but be only 10’ apart which would only allow fish to pass if they found tears in the net.
New traditions can be made according to changing thoughts. I believe old traditions are only those that are well established lines of thought and practices continually carried on through generations. If traditions are lost and rediscovered they should be practiced in the true traditional form with no other profit based ideals. This profit can be in the form of monetary compensation or pride.
Very thoughtful comments. Subsistence is a very tricky and highly charged political issue and it becomes tangled because the state constitution (as ruled by the Alaska Supreme Court) is not aligned with the federal mandate for a rural priority. This is a good place to get an overview of the issue from the AFN perspective (Alaska Federation of Natives). Great topic. http://www.alaskool.org/projects/ancsa/subsistence_chron/subchron.htm
ReplyDeleteI understood subsistence to be necessary for maintaining a traditional way of life. I believed it was a way for those who live mainly off the land in the bush to take care of their survival needs. I don't know where the line should be drawn when it comes to commercial use. I don't think it is ok to over hunt or fish for any reason. I am also an advocate of free chase, unless it means life or death from starvation. I also feel that the whole animal should be utilized rather than just the choice parts. That is just wasteful and shows disrespect for nature. I guess there are sincere and greedy people in every society. Unfortunately, it's the sincere that often pay for the deeds of the greedy.
ReplyDelete