Alaska Task Force Makes Report, Recommendations
Policies Stress Temporary Use,
Not Permanent Ownership of Land
During the month of June, 1962, a special three-man task force
traveled more than 5,000 miles inside Alaska, visiting 32 villages
and taking testimony from representatives of more than 100 native
communities.
Testimony was taken, from the delegates ?,t two conferences. Tan
ana Indian Chiefs Conference, and the Kotzebue Inupiat Paitot. More
than 60 village representatives attended the two meetings.
The chairman of the Task Force was W. W. Keeler, of the Phil
lips Petroleum Co., and the two other members were Hugh J. Wade,
Secretary of the State of Alaska, and James E. Officer, assistant com
missioner of the Bureau of Indian Affairs, Washington, D.C.
Thus far, the present chapter has
been concerned with a delineation
of some of the major problem areas
connected with the land question in
Alaska, In setting forth its recom
mendations, the Task Force will list
and comment on each of these.
1. The need for more effective
implementation of the exist
ing legislation directed tow
ard conveying land title to
individual natives.
Comment: Long overdue is a mu
tually acceptable determination by
the Bureau of Land Management
and the Bureau of Indian Affairs
as to how the Alaska Native Allot
ment Act and the Alaska Native
Townsite Act may be most liber
ally administered for the benefit
of the natives while at the same
time complying with the intent of
the legislation.
Apparently, at the field level,
the two Bureaus have long dis
agreed and the Washington Offices
have contributed little to a reso
lution of these differences.
The Task Force urges at the ear
liest possible date that field repre
sentatives of the two bureaus, aided
by the Chairman of the Interior
Department's Alaska Field Commit
tee, sit down and discuss both Acts
in order to define the areas of dif
ference so as to seek resolution at
higher administrative levels or
through legislation.
The Field Solicitor should be a
party to such conferences, but the
final interpretation of the legal is
sues should be made by the Depart
mental Solicitor in Washington.
Where legislation appears to be nec
essary. the Department should has
ten to prepare it: and if additional
appropriations are required in order
to implement the Allotment and
Townsite Acts, those should also be
sought.
Task Force members agree on the
necessity for allowing natives to
receive title to their camp sites and
their fishing and hunting sites, as
well as to their homesites, provided
the total allotment does not exceed
the 160 acres provided for in exist
ing legislation.
If the Departmental Solicitor does
not believe it is possible under the
present act to provide several small
allotments, amending legislation
should be sought. Such legislation
might include a time limit, prior to
which allotment applications would
have to be submitted in order to
qualify.
Whether or not new legislation is
sought, the Bureau of Indian Af
fairs and the Bureau of Land Man
agement should undertake to reach
agreement on what constitutes “use
and occupancy” under the 1956
Amendment to the Native Allotment
Act. If such agreement cannot be
obtained administratively, it should
be sought through statute.
With respect to the Townsite Act,
the two Bureaus should agree upon
a classification of Alaskan commun
ities which will make it possible to
survey some under the basic au
thority of the 1891 Act and others
under the authority of Section 3 of
the 1926 Act.
Furthermore, the Task Force sug
gests that title to unappropriated
townsite lots in unincorporated na
tive villages be taken in trust for
these comnjunities by the Bureau
of Indian Affairs, both for future
expansion of the villages and for
their economic development.
If this is not possible under exist
ing authority, new legislation
should be submitted as soon as pos
sible. The Bureau of Land Manage
ment should also arrange to repay
natives for money improperly ob
tained from them in connection with
the issuance of title to townsite lots.
2. The need for authority to
lease and otherwise develop
for the benefit of the natives
some of those lands already
reserved for them and to ex
tend this authority to future
withdrawals for their benefit.
Comment: Because of the confus
ion surrounding their entitlement
to lands which have been reserved
for the benefit, many native com
munities are unable to make use of
the resources which these lands
[ contain. For the lands to continue
in this uncertain status is not a good
thing fo reither the natives or the
State.
The Interior Department should
prepare and submit to Congress
legislation to settle this question
once and for all.
Some of the native communities
have no, reserved lands and the
Department should undertake to
make small withdrawals for these
villages so as to assure their con
tinued growth and economic devel
opment.
If necessary, the State selection
program in the immediate vicinity
of such villages should be suspended
for the time being in order to sur
vey out small acreages for the per
manent use and occupancy of the in
habitants.
The B.I.A. could hold these tracts
in trust until the communities or
ganized under State law, at which
time the titles could be transferred
in fee. This same procedure could
be used with respect to the vacant
townsite lots discussed in the pre
ceding recommendation.
In making these suggestions, the
Task Force wishes to emphasize
that it does not believe large with
drawals for the exclusive use of the
natives (such as the Venetie Re
, serve) are in the best interests of
either the natives or the State.
3. The need for the State and
the Federal Government to
designate subsistence use
areas without whose bound
aries the natives and other
persons depending upon sub
sistence hunting, fishing, and
berry picking would have a
continuing, privileged claim
to the harvest of these natural
products.
Comment: Close to many native
villages, especially in the Eskimo
and Athapascan country, are hunt
ing, fishing, and berry picking areas
critical to the subsistence of the
local inhabitants.
Many of these will one day be
transferred to the State and, pos
sibly, thence into private owner
ship; and some means should be i
worked out to assure the natives
and others a continuing opportunity |
to use them in traditional ways.
As mineral rights may be re
served, the Task Force believes that
hunting, fishing ,a n d gathering
rights might also be reserved for
stipulated periods of time. Reserva
tion of these rights would not nec
essarily interfere with other uses
of the land, nor with a transfer of
title to the land itself.
4. The need for the Congress to
elucidate the aboriginal land
rights of the natives and if
necessary to establish a forum
in which their claims can be
heard.
Comment: As pointed out else
where, Congress has never acted to
define the entitlement of Alaskan
natives to the lands they use, oc
cupy. and claim, although in 1884
it reserved to itself the privilege of
doing so.
If it intends ever to define this
entitlement, it should delay doing
so no longer and, if necessary,
should set up some kind of tribunal
to adjudicate native claims. Should
such a forum be created, the trans
fer of title to the State in some
cases might have to be deferred
until native claims were heard and
determined.
The Task Force feels that the
Congress should enact a statute of
limitations in any provision for de
ferral of State selection, so as not
to hold it up indefinitely.
Fish Traps
To Continue
For a Time
Because of its inability to reach
a conclusion v/ith respect to the
question of whether there were
other means besides the use of
traps by which the level of fish
production at Metlakatla could be
satisfactory maintained, the Task
Force decided not to attempt to ad
vise the Secretary as to the what
permanent action he should take.
However, it does wish to suggest
the following things:
1. That the Secretary Issue im
mediately a statement that he will
make no changes in existing regula
tions prior to the end of the 1963
fishing season.
Comment: The time is fast ap
oroaching when it will be neces
sary for the Metlakatlans to pur
chase equipment to outfit their
boats and traps.
It is probably too late now (De
cember) to acquire the additional
boats which would be required to
replace the trap catch, and too
late to make other arrangements
which might serve the same pur
pose.
If the Secretary chooses to change
the present regulations so as to pro
hibit the use of traps, he should try
to assure Metlakatla at least one
year in which to make ready for
this change.
The State of Alaska did not pro
vide a “grace period'' for other trap
owners, but the Supreme Court
ordered one for the Indians of
Kake and Angoon, and the Secre
tary’s trust responsibility might be
expected to call for similar con
sideration for the Indians of Met
lakatla.
2. That, together with the mem
bers of his staff, the Secretary un
dertake to determine what alterna
tives to trap production there are
which will assure continued social
and economic stability in the com
munity of Metlakatla, and do every
thing within his power to see that
these alternatives are available to
the Metlakatlans before any changes
in the present regulations take ef
fec‘- - 1 I
Problems of Polar Bear, Walrus,
Bird Treaty, Licenses Need Attention
The Task Force suggests that the
following items be considered by
the Secretary of the Interior and
the Governor of Alaska in develop
ing programs to help solve the hunt
ing and fishing problems of the Al
aska natives:
1. The need for the State to set
up a more satisfactory program of
licensing, and establishing seasons
and bag limits which will take into
greater account subsistence hunt
ing and fishing needs.
Comment: After completing its
field survey, the Task Force learn
ed that in response to suggestions
from one of its members, officials
of the state had undertaken to solve
two of the problems listed above.
On July 11, Governor Egan an
nounced that he had directed the
Alaska Department of Revenue to
provide outlying villages with
qualified agents for the issuance of
hunting and fishing licenses.
He also said he had asked the De
partment to review its policies with
respect to the issuance of 25-cent
subsistence licences so as to pro
vide more adequately for the needs
of the villagers in the more remote
areas.
Presumably, one of the items be
ing considered is granting subsist
ence licenses to more than one
member of a household. Governor
Egan said that he had suggested to
the Department of Revenue that
it investigate the feasibility of pro
viding the extra services in co
operation with the Bureau of In
dian Affairs and village councils.
It was apparent that some natives
have not yet accepted the idea of
having to purchase a license to
carry out the hunting, fishing and
trapping activities which have been
traditional with their families.
However, the Task Force does not
believe that a 25-cent subsistence
license imposes an undue hardship,
and that it does have value as a
part of the educational process.
On the other hand, for some years
to come it may be expected that a
few people in the villages will
protest any regulation whatsoever
of their hunting and fishing activi
ties.
2. The urgent need for a re-ex
amination of the terms of the 1816
Migratory Bird Treaty to determine
whether relief for the Alaska na
tives can be obtained administra
tively, or whether the Department
of the Interior should seek to have
the treaty amended.
Comment: In its hearings at Bar
row, the Task Force was told by
the natives that some of the water
fowl which the Department of the
Interior has insisted on including
within the restrictive provisions
of the 1916 agreement are not, in
fact, migratory and should be made
available for local subsistence use
at all seasons.
Eider ducks, which are specifical
ly mentioned by the Eskimos at
Barrow, are the subject of a special
provision (Article IV) of the
Treaty, which states that protection
for these birds may be obtained by
a closed season extending over a
period of at least five years, the
establishment of refuges, or such
other regulations as may be deem
ed appropriate.
In this provision, there would
appear to be adequate administra
tive flexibility for the Fish and
Wildlife Service to relax its pre
sent strict interpretation and, with
a proper eye to conservation of the
species, permit Eskimos to take
eider ducks for subsistence with
out fear of harrassment.
If the treaty provisions do not
permit similar administrative flexi
bility with respect to other species,
the Task Force urges the Depart
ment to give serious consideration
to seeking amendments.
It is recognized that any proposed
amendments will require ratifica
tion by all the Canadian provinces,
a much more complicated procedure
than was required in 1916, when
Great Britain acted for Canada.
However, the Canadian Eskimos
and Indians have problems similar
to those of Alaska, and it is not un
likely that the Central Government
of Canada, at least, would look fa
vorably upon less restrictive pro
visions for native subsistence hunt
ers.
A recent development of poten
tially great significance came to
the attention of the Task Force as
this report was being placed in final
form for submission to the Secre
tary of the Interior.
J. H. Sissons, Judge of the Ter
ritorial Court of the Northwest Ter
ritories in Canada, ruled that the
Migratory BircPConvention of 191G
has no application to natives hunt
ing for food and does not curtail
their hunting rights.
The case upon which the Cana
dian judge made his decision in
volved an Indian living near
Yellowknife, who had been arrest
ed by the Royal Canadian Mounted
Police and charged with shooting
a duck out of season.
A local magistrate fined the In
dian $10, whereupon the case was
appealed to Judge Sissons’ court.
Now the Crown has appealed Judge
Sissons’ decision.
The Task Force urges the De
partment of the Interior to main
tain communication with the Cana
dian government on this case, which
may help to define the relationship
between native subsistence hunt
ers in Alaska and the 1916 Con
vention.
3. Consideration should be given
to making sure that Alaskan natives
are represented on the Alaska State
Board of Fish and Game and on the
local district advisory boards.
Comment: In order to assure that
the special subsistence needs of the
natives are met, the Governor of
Alaska should make certain that
spokesmen for this important seg
ment of the State population serve
on the various boards and commit
tees which advise the legislature
and the Commissioner of Fish and
Game.
Furthermore, the local advisory
boards should be stimulated to
greater activity be stimulated to
mendations followed wherever pos
sible.
4. The importance of a combined
study by the Alaska Fish and Game
Department and the tl. S. Fish and
Wildlife Service of the effects of
polar bear hunting by airplane and
of walrus ivory hunting on con
servation of these animals.
Comment: Apparently, the State
of Alaska is presently investigating
the matter of Eskimo walrus hunt
ing and the Task Force believes
it should conduct similar studies
on the hunting of polar bear.
The effects of present hunting
practices on both these animals are
largely unknown.
Report
Available
All villages and interest
ed individuals are urged to
send for complete copies of
the Alaska Task Force re
port. Copies may be ob
tained free by writing: The
Bureau of Indian Affairs,
Washington, D.C.
BIA Needs Big
Reorganization
In order to carry out the recom
mendations made by the Task
Force in other chapters of this re
port, certain changes in the present
pattern of organization appear to
be necessary. Attention is called to
the following specific situations:
1. The need for delegation more
authority to the Directors of the
Field Offices.
2. The need to diversify the acti
vities of the Field Offices.
3. The need for a more adequate
orientation program for personnel
serving at field installations.
4. Reorganization of the Juneau
Area Office so as to make it pri
! marily a service installation for the
I field.
5. The need for more coordina
tion among the State and Federal
agencies administering programs of
special benefit to the natives.
‘Peace Corps’
Help Suggested
In Development
The increased emphasis on eco
nomic development by the Bureau
of Indian Affairs and the State of
Alaska will doubtless produce bene
fits for both natives and non-na
tives in the months to come.
The studies proposed with the
help of the A.R.A. will do far
more to determine the potential for
la large-scale economic develop
| ment program of direct benefit to
! the natives than will any observa
tions which the Task Force might
make in this report.
It is hoped that the A.R.A. studies
will be implemented once they have
been completed. The Task Force
will limit its recommendations to
calling attention to the following
factors which should be emphasized
in planning programs of economic
development for Alaskan commu
nities.
1. The need for classifying these
communities in terms of their eco
nomic needs and developmental po
tential.
Comment: There arc significant
differences among the native vil
lages with respect to both human
and natural resources. Furthermore,
the need for immediate economic
programs is not equally great in all
locations.
Those villagers who have access
to seasonal wage work which, com
bined with subsistence hunting and
fishing, can assure them a fairly
comfortable existence must be re
garded as being in less critical need
than natives in areas where neither
wage work nor subsistence hunting
and fishing can be depended upon.
Thus, the villages of the Bristol
Bay area in southeast Alaska ap
peared to the Task Force to be in
better circumstances than those in
the Bethel area, along the Seward
Peninsula, and along the middle
and uper Yukon River.
The latter areas certainly deserve
special attention.
2. Recognition of the fart that
for some of the native villages a
kind of "peace corps” program may
he the only realistic approach to
improving the economy.
Comment: Isolation and a lack of
physical resources and of human
skills severely limit the potential of
many areas of Alaska for industrial
development.
In such communities the princi
pal hope is to bring to the people
an improved technology which will
allow them more efficiently to take
advantage of what resources are
available, to help them organize so
EDITORIAL
Policy Would Undermine Native Land Needs, Rights
The report of the Alaska Task Force has been available
in Alaska for at least a full week. Recommendations from
the report are printed in part in this issue and others will
be included in a later issue.
The Task Force report contains an exceptionally able
analysis of the needs and problems of Alaska's native peo
ple, according to leaders of organized Alaskan native
groups.
The report calls attention to serious deficiencies in the
position of native people in regard to aboriginal land rights
and needs, hunting and fishing rights and needs, deficien
cies in education, lack of job and economic opportunities,
and other problems.
It agrees in almost every respect with the analysis and
statements of serious needs and problems which have
been brought out in Eskimo Inupiat conferences at Bar
row and Kotzebue, and the Indian Chiefs' conference at
Tanana last summer. It goes even further in pointing out
some inequities not previously brought out publicly by
anyone.
For this important public service, the task force is to
be heartily commended.
We have studied the report exhaustively and are in
agreement with about 70 per cent of the report, particu
larly its study and recommendations in the field of educa
tion.
We take sharpest disagreement with suggested dis
posal of land claimed by natives on the basis of historical
occupancy, use, and need.
Although the Task Force agrees with natives in rec
ognizing the guarantee of aboriginal rights in the Organic
Act of 1884, the Statehood Act of 1958, and various other
as to be eligible for benefits to
which they are entitled as distress
ed areas, and to acquaint them with
opportunities which may be avail
able elsewhere.
In the sections on adult education
and welfare the Task Force has
previously called attention to the
need for community workers who
can spend full time in helping the
people of the villages.
The Bureau of Indian Affairs al
ready has some of the resources
needed to undertake such a pro
gram and should delay it no longer.
National Groups
Commended
The Tundra Times woud like to
commend the Association on Am
erican Indian Affairs and the In
dian Rights Association for speedi
ly sending to us for study and ex
amination the Alaska Task Force
Report. The report was released
on March 1 but the first word of it
reached Alaska in Senator E. L.
Bartlett's newsletter on March 3
and 4.
On March 4, Alfred Ketzler, of
Nenana, in a wire to the AP in Ju
neau and the UPI in Anchorage
quoted from the report. Ketzler’s
quotation from the report was the
first mention in Alaska metropoli
tan dailies that the report had been
released.
By the time the dailies ran a story
of the report on March 6 and 7, the
Association on American Indian Af
fairs had thoroughly had a chance
to study the 110-page document and
release a statement of its position
in regard to it.
A high official of the Interior
Department promised Tundra Times
that he would personally send a
copy of the report to the paper as
soon as the report was released.
However, that copy of the report
did not arrive for many days af
ter March 1. We quickly received
copies of the report from interested
national Indian Affairs groups.
It is indeed refreshing that, for
a change, the first news of the re
lease of an important report from
Washington was by an Alaskan In
Need Stressed
For Info, Aid
On Sanitation
For the most part, the Task Force
is satisfied that the Indian Health
Service is at present doing an ex
cellent job.
Instead of making specific recom
mendations as to how that sister
agency might improve its Alaskan
program, the Task Force is gen
erally content simply to mention
those matters discussed previously
in this chapter.
For emphasis, however, it would
like to suggest that special atten
tion be paid to the following items:
1. The need for desseminating
more information to the native vil
lages concerning the sanitation pro
gram.
2. The desirability of combining
this program, or supplementing it,
with such others as the State’s Rural
Development Program the Comr
munity Facilities Program, and the
new Public Works Acceleration
Program.
To the extent possible, the Com
munity Services and Economic De
velopment personnel of the Bureau
of Indian Affairs should lend their
support to the Public Health Ser
vice in the coordination of all these
activities.
dian. It is quite puzzling, on the
other hand, why in this modern day
of rapid rommunication it takes a
certain northern daily newspaper
editor a week to receive a report
from Washington.
It is even more puzzling why this
editor lakes two weeks from the
time the report is released before
he comments on it. Even more be
wildering is the fact that when he
does decide to comment on it, his
comment contains but one or two
quotations and a listing of things
about the report with which every
one will agree.
Could it be that subscribers of a
certain Alaska daily newspaper are
getting shallow coverage of today's
news next week?
acts and court decisions, it stops short of recommending
full recognition of nalive land claims.
We believe the section in the Task Force report regard
ing the gigantic land problem is confusing and conflicting,
contains many statements to which we take strong excep
tion, and we consider many of the task force's recommend
ations detrimental to Alaska natives.
On the crucial land problem issue, the task force
failed to fully take into account native needs and gave
many unacceptable remedies that would deny to Alaska
natives one of the basic fundamental American rights, the
right to inherit and own property.
Natives have steadfastly maintained they need large
areas of land for hunting, fishing, and trapping now and
for development of resources later as their economy
changes. The task force recommended that the Depart
ment of Interior should make "small withdrawals" for
those villages that had no reserved land to assure their
continued growth and economic development. The Tundra
Times maintains small areas will not be sufficient.
The natives have consistently maintained they owned
the land around their villages where they hunt, fish, and
trap. The Task Force report recommends that hunting, fish
ing and berry gathering rights on lands close to native
villages should be reserved for "stipulated periods of
time." Apparently, the Task Force, in this recommendation,
is saying someone else, the state, for instance, should be
granted ownership of the ground upon which the natives
hunt and fish. The Tundra Times finds this recommenda
tion extremely confusing since in another part of the report
the task force stresses that whether the natives own the
land around them is a legal determination that has not
yet been made.
The Tundra Times is convinced that Task Force re
ceived erroneous information in regard to the land prob
lem. According to the task force report, "The state insists
that it does not intend to seek title to the lands which the
natives are clearly using or occupying . . ." This is the di
rect opposite of what is occuring at nearby Minto. Since
we received the task force report, we have telephoned
Joe Lawlor, State Land Office, in Fairbanks, and he says
the state is actively seeking the land which the Minto peo
ple are using and occupying.
In an undated mimeographed letter signed by Roscoe
E. Bell, Director, State Division of Lands, now being circu
lated to native villages, this sentence appears, "The State
cannot and does not want to select legally occupied private
or claimed lands." Yet this is exactly what is being at
tempted at Minto.
A big danger of the task force report is that certain
recommendations may be pushed while others are ne
glected or ignored.
If the Secretary of the Interior were to base policy on
the section of the task force report regarding the land
problem, it would indeed be detrimental to the native
people of Alaska.
There are many portions of the task force report which
bring to light many inequities. The BLM has been limiting
title to a single allotment, usually limited to five acres.
Natives believe that they should receive title to all lands
which they individualy occupy and use, regardless of the
total acreage.
The Task Force further calls attention to a fact, not
previously emphasized by native people, that the BLM
has acted improperly in selling off unappropriated town
site lots in unincorporated villages, and also in charging
natives for issuance of title to townsite lots.
It recommends that lots whose title do not pass to
natives should be held in trust for them by the BIA.
It also recommends that natives who have paid for
title to townsite lots should be reimbursed by the Bureau
of Land Management.
Moreover, the Task Force recognizes what natives and
their spokesmen have been insisting, that "the economic
development potential of the native communities cannot
be fully determined until Congress acts on the question of
native land titles."
The task force report, however, represents a cori
siderable advance, from the native standpoint, over any
official recognition hitherto given to their claims for a set
tlement of aboriginal land rights, and opens the way to a
fuller understanding and a more just settlement of both
land and economic problems.