With about one in five Alaskans dependent on wild foods harvested from the land and water, Native organizations were quick to sound the alarm over proposed changes to the Federal Subsistence Board.
When the U.S. Interior Department made the announcement on December 15, it sparked frustration over the limited time allow to comment, a 60-day period, which closes this Friday, February 13.
Native organizations mobilize
Despite this, Native groups have launched social media campaigns that have included webinars, massive email blasts and educational videos.
“This is a big deal,” said Joe Nelson, co-chair of the Alaska Federation of Natives, one the groups urging subsistence users to go online to comment before the deadline passes.
Nelson says the proposals threaten to weaken the voice of Alaska Natives in subsistence management with a lot at stake for future generations.
“We’ve been stewarding this place for tens of thousands of years,” Nelson said. “It’s really unconscionable, the thought of any of our grandkids not to be able to hunt and fish and utilize the area that their grandparents grew up in.”
Nelson is hoping the Interior Department will extend what it calls its “scoping period,” to allow more time for public comment.
Short window for public input
So far, the Department has held only one public meeting on Tuesday, February. 3. It was scheduled for four hours but lasted six hours and 33 minutes.
Everyone who signed up to testify, both online and at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife headquarters in Anchorage, got a chance to speak. But most of those at the gathering were far from satisfied. Many had left before their names were called and those who had traveled from across the state were angry to find out a three-minute limit was imposed upon their testimony.
“It’s an insult,” said Joe Williams, the tribal president from Saxman, a predominately Lingít community, south of Ketchikan.
Williams brought jars of smoked salmon to give to the Interior Department’s Senior Alaska Advisor for Alaska Affairs, Kara Moriarty, and her staff.
“So, as you are having this, remember, this is a way of life,” Williams said, as he set the jars in front of them. “I’ve never met you and hope to come to know you. This is what we do.”
Throughout the hearing, Moriarty apologized profusely for the time limit but said it was the only way to include as many voices as possible. She praised the audience for their patience and politeness and encouraged people to submit written testimony, or engage in the tribal consultation process.
An overflow crowd and hours of testimony
An Interior Department spokesman said total of 75 people testified, both online and in person -- in a room that sweltered like a sauna, due to the size of the overflow crowd, directed to a listening station in the lobby.
Most were from rural communities that depend on hunting and fishing. They came to object to Safari Club International's petition to reform the Federal Subsistence Board, proposals they say pose a major threat to their ability to put food on the table.
“To say that the proposed changes are anti-subsistence is simply not correct,” said John Sturgeon, a longtime leader of the Alaska chapter of the Safari Club.
“Specifically, the protection of wildlife must always come first,” Sturgeon said. “If there’s not wildlife, if there’s not fish, you’re not going to have subsistence.”
An old debate returns
The battle over who manages subsistence on federal lands is an old one in Alaska, which historically has pitted two groups against each other – those who subsist to survive and those who hunt and fish for sport and recreation.
Under the 1980 Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act, Congress established a rural priority for subsistence on federal public lands and waters. When the state failed to pass a constitutional amendment to fall in line with ANILCA, the federal government created a Federal Subsistence Board to uphold the rural priority. Under the Alaska Constitution, the state cannot give one resident priority over another based on geography. This led to a dual system of management since 1990.
Safari Club International’s proposed reforms
Sturgeon says the Safari Club believes the Federal Subsistence Board has drifted far beyond its original intent – that it has ignored the rule of law and failed to make protecting fish and wildlife its highest priority. The sport hunting group says the board has let politics, instead of science, influence its decisions on emergency hunts.
Among the changes Safari Club International seeks in a petition it filed last May asking the Interior and Agriculture secretaries to revise federal subsistence regulations.
- Federal Subsistence Board Membership: Reduce board to its original five seats, comprised of federal agency heads. This would eliminate five public seats on the board that include three tribally nominated members.
- Regional Advisory Council Membership: Elect members to the 12 RACS. Currently they are appointed by the Interior and Agriculture Secretaries through an application process.
- Special Action Regulations: Limit the board’s ability to impose special actions. The Safari Club has claimed past emergency hunts, approved to provide subsistence opportunity to struggling communities, were not true emergencies.
- Role of the State: Federal Subsistence Board should defer to state fish and game managers on wildlife conservation matters.
- Federal and State Regulation: Eliminate duplication and inconsistences.
Kyle Tripp, president of the Alaska chapter of the Safari Club, said the Federal Subsistence Board needs to work more closely with the state, because it conducts the most comprehensive wildlife surveys and long-term research in Alaska.
He says the board should be required to defer to state managers to ensure that decisions remain grounded in biological data.
“Emergency closures have been misused in non-emergency situations, bypassing public involvement and state review,” Tripp said. “Alaska wildlife is a public trust that belongs to all Alaskans.”
The state’s deputy commissioner for Fish and Game, Ben Mulligan, testified in support of the Safari Club and also submitted the department's formal written response. Mulligan said, from the state's perspective, federal management has interfered with its constitutional mandate to manage fish and wildlife for the benefit of all Alaskans.
“The state of Alaska's role has largely been supplanted by the federal subsistence management program, far exceeding the narrow federal authority ANILCA provides,” Mulligan said. “Regulatory reforms are necessary to restore the state's proper role as the primary manager of Alaska's fish and wildlife.”
Tribal perspectives and local knowledge
Tribal leaders like Matt Anderstrom questioned the motives of state managers and the Safari Club.
Anderstrom, the Yaktutat tribe’s food sovereignty coordinator, said the proposals attempt sidestep the intent of ANILCA. He worries that changes to the Rural Advisory Council selection process would open the door to commercial interests.
“I want to be clear. RACs are often the only places where local subsistence voices are heard at all," said Anderstrom. “Weakening them would silence the very people ANILCA was written to protect.”
Gloria Burns, president of the Ketchikan Indian Community, says the federal management system that evolved has improved over time — that the additional public and tribal seats on the board have strengthened wildlife management.
“We strongly believe that the people who use the land need to be making the decisions about the land,” she said, “people who know what it's like to be hungry, know what it's like to be in relationship with the land.”
Other tribal leaders said the Safari Club’s emphasis on Western science can’t replace the traditional ecological knowledge that locals provide.
“It seems to me more like the law is working exactly as Congress intended,” said Joseph Valle, a member of the Yakutat Tribal Council. “Our people on the ground see changes before they ever show up in reports. Salmon runs shift. Weather shifts. Access shifts. That's why local knowledge and Regional Advisory Councils matter.
"Special actions and emergency tools aren't necessarily abuses of authority. They're how families survive when a run fails or conditions change rapidly,” Valle said. “Because for us, this isn’t a theoretical conversation. These decisions affect whether our families eat or not.”
What prompted federal review?
The Department of Interior is also reviewing an administrative change made during the Biden administration, in which the Office of Subsistence Management was moved out of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to the Deputy Interior Secretary’s office for oversight. Native leaders say the move helped to protect the program’s budget and elevate subsistence as a priority within the Interior Department.
During the hearing, Moriarty, as the Interior Department’s top Alaska official, reminded the crowd that the review itself was not prompted by the Safari Club, but instead by President Trump, who has ordered an evaluation of all government departments.
Also in January 2025, Trump issued Executive Order 14153 – Unleashing Alaska’s Extraordinary Resource Potential. The order specifically directs all bureaus of the Department of Interior to conduct meaningful consultations with state wildlife managers, prior to enacting land management plans or regulations that affect the ability of Alaskans to hunt and fish on public lands.
Moriarty also said the purpose of the scoping period was solely to gather information.
“No decisions have been made to make any changes to the program at all,” she said. “If the secretaries determine they would like to make any changes, a rule-making process would begin at a future date.”
The Interior Department is offering tribes and Alaska Native Corporations two more opportunities to comment on the federal subsistence management review. It says they will be notified directly with more details. Sessions will be held statewide, in-person and virtually on March 10 and 17 from 1:30 to 3:00 p.m.
As of February 9, a department spokesman said it had received more than 430 comments during its scoping process, with more expected before the comment period closes on February 13. Written testimony sent through the U.S. Mail must be postmarked by February 13. To submit comments electronically, the deadline is noon on February 13. The email address is: subsistence@ios.doi.gov.
