Lisa Murkowski

I really do believe that if we were at the table, I mean, we're reasonable people.

There's no other way to replace the food source, and, really, it is the essence of subsistence and the rural preference is food security.

How do you determine the priority for allocation of funding between State and the tribes?

If the State of Alaska today were to pass a constitutional amendment that allows for a rural priority, would that, in and of itself, bring the State into compliance with Title VIII under ANILCA?

Are you able then to provide funding for all of the requests? You meet the requests?

Senator Murkowski. Just for the information of those here testifying and those that will be part of the second panel, Senator Wyden and I are actually trying to manage an energy bill on the floor as we speak.

When it comes to the active management, we're dealing with enormous spaces and almost always limited resources.

We're willing to sit together, listen to one another, engage in a respectful manner

We recognize in Alaska that the Federal Government fails to prioritize land-management decisions for subsistence to ensure healthy and abundant populations for consumption.

Do you think that it would be helpful, obviously, I mean, you live and work and breathed the fisheries incidents not only this past summer out there in the Bethel region, but in years prior.

You usually can't get everything you want. You usually can't get everything you deserve

To identify your cultures, but, really, your spirituality with your food source, I think, is something that is important.

This is a very State-specific issue, and the fact that we are holding this as part of a full committee I think is indicative of your willingness to recognize the high priorities that are assigned in specific states.

Like I have never met Senator Manchin. I am impressed with the character of the man because he stepped forward to say that he's interested in hearing more about this discussion here.

ANILCA does mandate the Federal Government to provide for a meaningful role in management.

I think we could work things out. But, as it is, right now, we're not at the table.

It is their rights we all aim to protect.

It seems to me we have Federal statutes, Federal laws and you've got an administration that is choosing to interpret or give priority again to some Federal statutes at the expense of others.

I don't think that our RACs actually have any power or authority beyond just providing recommendations and information.

The opportunity today to have a discussion, to begin a dialog about what happens with the management of our lands, the management of our lands that sustain our people, is really quite significant.

But depending on where you are, upriver--you know, quite honestly, the fish could care less whether it's State management or Federal management.

I think that's where it appears to me that folks aren't believing that we're getting that level of input, because they don't see the deference being shown to what is coming from the local people, the local input.

This, it's not an acceptable outcome here.

The passion that people spoke to was much the same, and, Mr. Chairman, you note that.

The dual management and differing management regimes on State and Federal land causes both confusion and frustration for so many rural Alaska residents.