Might this issue be determined,  not by race but by rural / subsistence criteria?    
For example, Alaska has several precedents that allow rural residents (of any genetics) to hunt certain animals, like winter moose, that others cannot hunt, if they meet  economic/livelihood criteria and/or live in designated remote areas where their access to other sources of meat  is restricted. Providing legal access to food in the bush (by any responsible hunter/fisher) seems to me a different issue altogether  than an urbanite selling jewelry in an Anchorage mall.      

When I moved to Alaska from a US Southern state, I was astonished to see signs like "Native Hospital" decades after "Colored Hospital" signs had not only been expunged, but repudiated for their explicit separation of rights and access.  As a result, I for one, am very uncomfortable with legal disenfranchisement of the people in "this house" but not of those next door.