The State of Alaska has filed a motion for summary judgment asking the U.S. District Court to reject claims brought by the federal government that would strip Alaska of its right to manage fisheries on the Kuskokwim River. The dispute centers around the implementation of subsistence priority for fishery management and the applicability of a priority for “rural” subsistence. The State argues that the federal government does not have the authority to manage the fishery on the Kuskokwim River because it is not considered “public land” under the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act. If successful, the Biden Administration’s lawsuit could set precedent for ceding management of Alaska fisheries to the federal government, a potential infringement on the state’s rights and its ability to sustainably manage its resources.
Background
The ongoing dispute over fishery management rights on the Kuskokwim River has brought the State of Alaska and the Biden Administration into conflict. The State of Alaska has filed a motion for summary judgment in the U.S. District Court, seeking to reject the federal government’s claims to strip Alaska of its right to manage fisheries on the river. The dispute stems from conflicting management emergency orders issued over the past two years by the Federal Subsistence Board (FSB) and the Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G).
The central issue at hand is the implementation of subsistence priority for fishery management, particularly regarding the applicability of a priority for “rural” subsistence on the Kuskokwim River. In 2021 and 2022, the FSB issued emergency special actions for the portion of the river within the Yukon Delta National Wildlife Refuge, while ADF&G also issued emergency orders for the river during that time frame. These orders often conflicted, with the FSB authorizing limited subsistence fishing only for rural residents, while ADF&G’s order allowed subsistence fishing for any Alaskan eligible for it.
The full account of conflicting management can be found in a sworn declaration by Commissioner Vincent-Lang. The State argues that the federal government lacks the authority to manage the fishery on the Kuskokwim River, as it does not qualify as “public land” under the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act. Furthermore, the State claims that the appointments to the FSB violate the Appointments Clause of the U.S. Constitution, rendering federal orders invalid. The State’s defense is reinforced by the 2019 U.S. Supreme Court decision in Sturgeon v. Frost and other recent Supreme Court decisions.
If the Biden Administration’s lawsuit is successful, it could set a precedent for ceding management of Alaska fisheries to the federal government. This outcome would have far-reaching implications beyond the Kuskokwim River, potentially impacting other significant waterways in Alaska, such as the Yukon and Copper Rivers. Governor Mike Dunleavy asserts that fisheries management was a right granted to the State at statehood and that the federal government’s aggressive efforts to take over state management of resources leave Alaska with no choice but to fight for its rights and citizens.
Conflicting Management Orders
The conflict in fishery management on the Kuskokwim River arises from the conflicting orders issued by the Federal Subsistence Board and the Alaska Department of Fish and Game. The Federal Subsistence Board, responsible for subsistence management on federal public lands in Alaska, issued emergency special actions for the portion of the Kuskokwim River within the Yukon Delta National Wildlife Refuge. These actions aimed to address subsistence fishing priorities and regulate access to the fishery.
Simultaneously, the Alaska Department of Fish and Game issued its own emergency orders for the Kuskokwim River. The orders from the Federal Subsistence Board and ADF&G often conflicted, creating confusion and disputes. For example, while the FSB’s order limited subsistence fishing on the river to rural residents, ADF&G’s order opened it to subsistence fishing for any Alaskan eligible for it. These conflicting orders have led to tensions and disagreements over the management of the fishery and who has access to it.
State’s Arguments
The State of Alaska presents several arguments to support its position on fishery management rights on the Kuskokwim River. First, the State contends that the Kuskokwim River does not meet the definition of “public land” under the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act. The Act grants the federal government management authority only over public lands, and the State argues that the river does not fall into this category. Therefore, the federal government lacks the jurisdiction to assert control over fishery management on the river.
Secondly, the State asserts that the appointments to the Federal Subsistence Board violate the Appointments Clause of the U.S. Constitution. This provision requires the President to seek the advice and consent of the Senate in appointing principal officers of the United States. The State argues that the appointments to the FSB were made without fulfilling this requirement, rendering the federal orders invalid.
The State’s defense is supported by the 2019 U.S. Supreme Court decision in Sturgeon v. Frost. This ruling clarified the boundaries of federal authority over navigable waters within Alaska’s national parks, affirming the State’s right to regulate activities on these waters. The State argues that this decision supports its position that the federal government’s attempts to seize control of fisheries management on the lower stretch of the Kuskokwim River are unjustified.
Potential Implications
The outcome of the lawsuit between the State of Alaska and the Biden Administration could have significant implications for fishery management rights in Alaska. If the federal government succeeds in stripping Alaska of its management authority over the Kuskokwim River, it could set a precedent for ceding management of other Alaska fisheries to the federal government. This would revert to a situation similar to the one that motivated Alaska’s statehood in the first place.
Governor Mike Dunleavy expresses concern that allowing federal overreach to stand would open the door for the State to lose its right to manage fisheries on other important waterways, including the Yukon and Copper Rivers. This would undermine the rights granted to Alaska at statehood and the principle of sustainable fisheries management enshrined in the Alaska Constitution.
Furthermore, the dispute over fishery management on the Kuskokwim River highlights the potential for differential treatment of Alaskan citizens. Some individuals may gain priority access to resources based on their residency status, while others with cultural and traditional ties to the fishery may be excluded. This differential treatment runs contrary to the Alaska Constitution, the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act, and the values of fairness and equality among all Alaskans.
Governor’s Statement
Governor Mike Dunleavy strongly condemns what he perceives as federal overreach infringing on Alaska’s rights. He asserts that the federal government’s actions are impacting the state’s sovereignty and the rights granted to Alaska at the time of statehood.
The Governor emphasizes the importance of fisheries management as a right granted to Alaska at statehood, essential for sustainably managing the state’s fisheries resources. He argues that the Biden Administration has grown increasingly aggressive in its efforts to take over state management of the state’s resources, leaving Alaska with no choice but to defend its rights and citizens.
Attorney General’s Statement
Alaska’s Attorney General, Treg Taylor, criticizes the federal government’s attempts to seize management authority over fish and game resources in Alaska. He characterizes these efforts as an assault on all Alaskans and as an infringement on the state’s constitutional mandate to manage resources for the benefit of all its citizens.
Attorney General Taylor points out that the State and federal government have historically coexisted peacefully, with federal management relying on the State’s science and sustainability goals. However, this cooperative relationship ended when the federal government sued the State over its actions to protect both downriver and upriver subsistence fishermen.
The Attorney General highlights the importance of comprehensive management based on sound science and sustainability to protect subsistence needs and future fish returns. He criticizes the federal government’s approach of picking winners and losers without considering long-term impacts on fish populations and the well-being of all Alaskans.
Commissioner’s Statement
Doug Vincent-Lang, Commissioner of the Alaska Department of Fish and Game, emphasizes the importance of state management of natural resources. He highlights how the state’s right to manage fishery resources was guaranteed under the Statehood Compact with the federal government and later reaffirmed under the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act.
Commissioner Vincent-Lang expresses concern over the differential treatment of Alaskan citizens resulting from the federal government’s interference in fishery management. He notes that some individuals gain priority access to resources, while others are excluded based solely on their place of residence within the state. This differential treatment contradicts the principles of fairness and equal treatment enshrined in the Alaska Constitution.
The Commissioner reiterates that the State’s defense in this dispute is about standing up for all Alaskans. He argues that the federal government’s actions not only go against the State’s constitutional rights but also divert resources and money from efforts to restore depressed salmon runs, further exacerbating the challenges facing Alaska’s fisheries.
Frequently Asked Questions
To provide a better understanding of the ongoing dispute over fishery management on the Kuskokwim River, the State of Alaska has compiled a list of frequently asked questions. These questions address key aspects of the dispute, including the conflicting management orders, the federal government’s authority, and the potential implications for Alaskans. It aims to provide clarity and address common concerns regarding the matter.
Map of the Region
To visualize the area affected by the dispute, a map of the Kuskokwim River region is provided. The map highlights the location of the river, the Yukon Delta National Wildlife Refuge, and other key geographic features relevant to the management of the fishery. It serves as a visual aid to enhance readers’ understanding of the dispute and its geographical context.
Conclusion
The ongoing lawsuit between the State of Alaska and the Biden Administration regarding fishery management rights on the Kuskokwim River has significant implications for Alaska’s sovereign control of its resources. The State firmly argues that the federal government’s attempts to seize management authority are unfounded and infringe upon Alaska’s rights enshrined in statehood and the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act. The outcome of this dispute could set a precedent for federal overreach in Alaska’s fisheries management, potentially impacting other important waterways and undermining the principles of fairness and equality among all Alaskans. The State of Alaska, its Governor, Attorney General, and Commissioner of Fish and Game, are resolute in their defense of state management rights and their commitment to protecting the best interests of all Alaskans.
