Members of the Alaska House and Senate who call themselves the “Bush Caucus” have written a letter to the Alaska congressional delegation, telling them that they think Gov. Mike Dunleavy might be working to preserve hunting and fishing rights for all. They think that is a bad idea, because the federal government manages its lands with rural residents having priority for fish and game, a model they support.
The letter, received Monday, April 14, states that the Bush Caucus members think Dunleavy is trying to challenge the “Katie John” decisions and the federal government’s awarding of special rights for Natives under Title III of the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA).
However, the letter’s promotion of a rural subsistence priority directly conflicts with the Alaska Constitution, which raises a question about whether the legislators who signed it are, in fact, violating their oath to uphold the state constitution. This may expose them to civil action by their constituents.
Key points of the letter include support for ANILCA’s rural subsistence priority under Title III of ANILCA, which prioritizes subsistence uses by rural residents during resource shortages; and the accusation that the Dunleavy Administration is undermining the “Katie John” decisions (which affirmed federal subsistence priority on certain navigable waters) through litigation and by seeking to align the state with President Trump’s Executive Order 14153.
The letter references the Alaska Supreme Court’s 1989 McDowell decision, which ruled that a rural subsistence priority violates the Alaska Constitution’s common use clause, and notes the state’s failure to amend the constitution to align with ANILCA. The letter says that Gov. Tony Knowles in 2001 made the promise that the state would never undermine the Katie John decision, and the writers state that binds the hands of all future governors.
The letter was signed by Speaker Bryce Edgmon, Rep. Louise Stutes, Rep. Robyn Burke, Sen. Lyman Hoffman, Rep. Neal Foster, Rep. Maxine Dibert, Sen. Donny Olson, and Rep. Nellie Jimmie.
The problem for these legislators, Alaska Constitution contains provisions that directly conflict with the rural subsistence priority advocated in the letter. These include:
- Article VIII, Section 3 (Common Use Clause): “Wherever occurring in their natural state, fish, wildlife, and waters are reserved to the people for common use.” This clause mandates equal access to natural resources for all Alaskans, without preference for any group.
- Article VIII, Section 4 (Sustained Yield): Requires fish and wildlife to be managed on a sustained yield principle, subject to preferences among beneficial uses, but not among specific groups like rural residents.
- Article VIII, Section 17 (Uniform Application): “Laws and regulations governing the use or disposal of natural resources shall apply equally to all persons similarly situated with reference to the subject matter and purpose to be served by the law or regulation.” This prohibits discriminatory preferences based on residency or ethnicity.
In the 1989 McDowell v. State case, the Alaska Supreme Court ruled that the rural subsistence priority in state law (that were modeled after ANILCA) violated these constitutional provisions because it granted preferential access to rural residents, thus denying equal access to others. The court held that such a priority conflicted with the common use and uniform application clauses, rendering it unconstitutional under state law.
Alaska legislators take an oath under Article XII, Section 5 of the Alaska Constitution: “I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the duties of [my office], and will to the best of my ability preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the State of Alaska.” This oath binds legislators to uphold the constitution’s provisions, including those governing natural resource access.
The Bush Caucus’s advocacy for a rural subsistence priority, as outlined in the letter, appears to contradict the Alaska Constitution by promoting an unconstitutional policy to the congressional representatives, undermining common use and equal access provisions, and by failing to address the constitutional barriers. The letter writers reinforce federal authority through ANILCA to bypass state law, effectively stepping on the constitution, rather than upholding it.
The Bush Caucus is now promoting a position that the Alaska Supreme Court has deemed unconstitutional. They are actively working contrary to their oaths to “preserve, protect, and defend” the Alaska Constitution, and they are blatantly ignoring the McDowell ruling, which is binding under state law, while criticizing the governor for upholding the law.
If rural legislators truly believe in a rural preference, they need to try to amend the Alaska Constitution, but until then, their oath requires the opposite — that they uphold the Alaska Constitution.
Here is their letter:
Since when has that group given a damn about following the law?
The federal government has legal jurisdiction over FEDERAL lands, and FEDERAL law applies to that – not state law or the State Constitution. Federal law gives access to ALL Alaskans, unless there is not enough fish or game to go around. If that is the case, RURAL residents who are most likely to depend on fish and game to live get priority over people living in Anchorage, Fairbanks, etc. If there is not enough fish and game for all rural residents – not Native residents as you suggest — then local people living nearest the game get priority. That means if you live in a remote Native village, you get priority to the fish and game roaming the lands where you actually live. If you live say near Ketchikan, you get priority to the fish and game nearby as opposed to people who might want to fly in from Anchorage. It is NOT a racial preference. it is a common sense preference that applies ONLY during times of shortage. At ALL times, fish and game MUST BE MANAGED ON A SUSTAINED YIELD BASIS — the population has to be able to sustain itself. Federal law and management only applies to federal lands. State law which is everyone has equal access regardless of need — millionaires living in Anchorage have the same rights to moose 300 miles from Bethel and the LOCAL residents who live there and have no grocery stores.
You are not completely correct, Lisa. The state does have means to limit who gets to hunt. There are 2 levels of registration hunts that can limit who hunts.
Lisa, could you please provide a list of villages that have no grocery stores?
Thank You.
Lisa under the statehood compact what was the pledge of the federal government regarding federal lands? Is this a broken pledge? Can you speak from educated position or just from a ignorant position?
Is this the same Lisa Sutherland who spent her entire legal career living in Washington, DC, working as a federal bureaucrat?
Don’t most of the villages now have fast food take-out? If the caribou aren’t nearby, grab your satellite phone and place your order.
“Honey, go ahead and call Domino’s. Hold the anchovies, OK? And be sure to mention that we aren’t swatting today.”
I guess the same would be true about state money to private or religious schools.
Change the constitution first!
To all “sides” in this issue: Please don’t stir up this war. It will end badly for everyone. The feds will use this issue to seize more control over our State. No one exercises restraint. Many have strong opinions. Can we work together to come to consensus?
Agreed. The last thing we need is more feral meddling.
We need less Federal involvement in the state. The Federal government was never meant to be a land holder with the exception of the District of Columbia.
Pure RACISM! Rural preference in the mind of many Natives means to the “exclusion of white people.” ANILCA does not say that.
If the Native legislators want Native hunting and fishing preference, let them use bows and arrows, spears, stones, bone hooks, blanket toss, umiaks and dugouts. No firearms, radios, GPS, spotting scopes, cellphones, satellite phones, stainless steel knives, snowmobiles, four-wheelers, side by sides, pick-up trucks, airplanes, cameras, walkie talkies, etc., etc.
All of the above are white person inventions. If white persons are excluded by priority for use of Alaska’s resources, then Natives should use their own devices for the kill. Otherwise, THEY are the racists.
Someone said it, finally. Thank you, Jose.
👏👏
Sounds to me they are arguing that hunting and fishing rights only belong to certain groups regardless of the fact that the fish and wildlife resources belong to all of us.
First Alaskans want it both ways. They want to use European tools to subsistence hunt and claim ancestral culture and heritage gives them the Right to do so. These western tools have only been in their hands for about 150 years. The subsistence lifestyle they speak about lasted 10,000 years, and was SOLELY done on FOOT with a Spear. They where the GREATEST HUNTERS OF ALL TIME. if you want hunt under subsistence —-Get a spear, otherwise fish and hunt like everybody else.It shouldn’t be a matter of Race, Heritage, Culture, or Residence. It is about how you Hunt or Fish with a SPEAR.
This attack on the Bush Caucus is a masterclass in legal gaslighting — a clumsy attempt to wrap a blatantly political agenda in the veneer of constitutional sanctimony. Let’s be clear: the legislators in question aren’t violating their oath — they’re honoring it by defending the spirit of both Alaska’s constitution and the legal realities that govern our state’s unique rural landscape.
The so-called “defenders of the constitution” like Gov. Dunleavy aren’t upholding law — they’re undermining decades of hard-won legal and cultural recognition for Alaska Native communities and rural residents. The “Katie John” decisions, affirmed in federal court, are not optional suggestions — they are binding precedent. To challenge those rulings is not a defense of state sovereignty — it is an open act of hostility against Native subsistence rights, legal precedent, and federal-state cooperation.
And let’s not pretend the Alaska Constitution exists in a vacuum. Article VIII’s “common use” clause has never meant “identical use by all people in all places at all times,” nor does it override the lived reality of rural Alaskans who depend on fish and game for survival. What it doesn’t mean is that wealthy weekend hunters from Anchorage deserve equal access to resources in places they’ve never set foot in, at the expense of communities who’ve stewarded those lands for millennia.
The idea that supporting federal subsistence protections violates the state constitution is a gross oversimplification — and frankly, dishonest. The McDowell decision didn’t strike down subsistence, it struck down a clumsy statutory workaround that failed to pass a constitutional amendment. The remedy isn’t to pretend rural needs don’t exist. It’s to fix the constitution — and yes, many of these legislators have supported doing just that. They’re not subverting the law; they’re working within it to serve the people they represent — who, by the way, are Alaskans too.
Dunleavy’s alignment with Trump’s executive order isn’t about constitutional fidelity — it’s about oil, deregulation, and consolidating power. His administration is weaponizing constitutional technicalities to roll back Native rights and override a subsistence framework that works. And let’s not forget: ANILCA was part of the deal when Alaska gained statehood. You don’t get to cherry-pick sovereignty when it’s convenient and then whine about federal control when the courts don’t side with you.
So no — the Bush Caucus is not violating their oath. They’re upholding justice. They’re fighting for the people who don’t have a lobbyist in Juneau. They’re resisting a cynical and ahistorical reading of the law that ignores the fact that rural Alaska is not the same as suburban Alaska — and pretending it is only benefits those who’ve never once depended on a fish wheel to feed their family.
If you want to talk about constitutional obligations, let’s start with the one everyone seems to forget: the obligation to govern with integrity, equity, and respect for Alaska’s Indigenous peoples. The Bush Caucus is doing exactly that. And those attacking them? They’re defending a paper-thin version of “equality” that protects no one but the powerful.
The attack on the Bush Caucus is a masterclass in legal gaslighting — a clumsy attempt to wrap a blatantly political agenda in the veneer of constitutional sanctimony. Let’s be clear: the legislators in question aren’t violating their oath — they’re honoring it by defending the spirit of both Alaska’s constitution and the legal realities that govern our state’s unique rural landscape.
The so-called “defenders of the constitution” like Gov. Dunleavy aren’t upholding law — they’re undermining decades of hard-won legal and cultural recognition for Alaska Native communities and rural residents. The “Katie John” decisions, affirmed in federal court, are not optional suggestions — they are binding precedent. To challenge those rulings is not a defense of state sovereignty — it is an open act of hostility against Native subsistence rights, legal precedent, and federal-state cooperation.
My family has a hunting lease on Native Alaska land. 10K acres. We are allowed 3 moose a year. Natives Alaskans from that Native Corporation hunt the same land, but only them. Leasing the land is not cheap. Natives OWN exclusive lands that only they can hunt, fish and gather berries on all over Alaska. If Natives choose they can make money by leasing these lands to others to hunt. There is a concerted effort to prop up Bush Alaska above Urban Alaska. Be it the PFD, Energy subsidies, Sanitation subsidies, Fish/Game preferences, school funding, double standards on Medicaid and on and on. Greaseie wheel gets the attention, The mentality of a “ I always got my hand out wanting more “,race of people. Nobody to blame but the white people who through their initial good intentions created the current monster of “ Jimmy Gimmie”.
As Lisa Sutherland mentioned, “The federal government has legal jurisdiction over FEDERAL lands, and FEDERAL law applies to that – not state law or the State Constitution.” This is TRUE.
It is tiresome for so many issues to be made into a “racial” or “group” subject.
The State Constitution applies to state governance and state-owned lands but cannot override Federal Authority on Federal lands. For example: Federal environmental regulations or land-use restrictions on Federal lands (e.g., in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge) supercede state policies.
I always thought people that actually live in an area should have priority access to that area’s resources over people who do not live there. Also, the article seems to assume “rural” means “Alaska Native”, but a lot of white people live in the bush and benefit from “rural” priority too. Anyone who wants to can benefit if you are actually willing to live there. Seems fair.
Defacto racism from the party & people who call EVERYONE a racist, regardless of the issue at hand. No irony there. It’s illegal what they’re trying to do, along with the binding caucus, rhe sneak vote, the plundering of the PFD. Where’s the state Attorney General, Treg Taylor? As usual, nowhere to be found.