Statement of the Tanana Chiefs Conference, Inc.


Further Exploration and Oil Development in the 1002 Area of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge

co. the

United States Senate Energy and National Resources

Subcommittee on Public Lands and Reserved Water



Digitized by the Internet Archive In 2022 with funding from University of Alberta Library

The Tanana Chiefs Conference is a regional Native nonprofit organization representing 43 Athabascan Indian communities in Interior Alaska. Among the villages we represent are Arctic Village and Venetie, communities that are heavily dependent, economically and nutritionally, upon the Porcupine caribou herd. We represent several other villages dependent upon that herd to a lesser extent. Tanana Chiefs appreciates the opportunity to comment on the further exploration and development in the 1002

area of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge at this time.

The people in Arctic Village and Venetie are opposed to further exploration and development on the coastal plain of the refuge. The people in these villages feel certain that oil development Wise Gisrupt. the =Porcupine sCaripou, Herd invedistribution and population significantly. The final resource assessment report itself concludes that major effects on the porcupine herd could result if the entire 1002 area were leased and developed. The Porcupine Caribou are the central food source for these subsis- tence based villages. There are no other local food sources to take the place of the caribou. Neither the draft nor the final coastal plain resource assessment clearly outline how critical the Porcupine Caribou are to the existence of those villages. As an environment impact statement, it fails to analyze the potential socioeconomic characteristics in Arctic Village and

Venetie that may be significantly affected by the proposed

Aci Ol. The National Environmental Policy ~Act requires an |

analysis of the human environment impacted by major Federal |

actions. The potential impacts on Arctic Village and Venetie |

must be assessed in much greater detail.

Hearings were not held in these villages to illustrate the impacts that oil development could have on those villages. Section 810 of the Alaska National Interest Lands Act (ANILCA) CaMlSamelLOLumnearinosmchOULG@ma determination Of sesienicicant restriction on subsistence activity be made. However, section

810 only applies to Federal agencies and will not provide

5/87-285 1

protections if hearings are carried out after a congressional decision to open the Coastal Plain to oil development occurs. Congress instituted section 810 to protect subsistence uses. If Congress decides to open the refuge to oil development the legislation itself must contain impact mitigation language specifically for Arctic Village, Venetie, and other villages that use the Porcupine Caribou herd. These people of Arctic Village and Venetie have potentially the most to loose of anyone. They gain no tax benefits being located outside of the organized borough in which development will occur and yet their main food source and base of the economy could be significantly damaged. These villages are not in a position to form a borough them- selves. The full board of the Tanana Chiefs Conference adopted a resolution to oppose development in the refuge until hearings are held@iinsathe galbectedsaviislaces, "A. copy ols ithat jresolution gis attached to this statement.

The entire Kwitchen Indian culture is based upon caribou. There are irreplaceable values potentially in jeopardy. The people of Arctic Village and Venetie want the decision makers in Congress to know how the congressional decision could affect them cultur- ally and economically. A detailed socioeconomic analysis for

those villages is needed as well as hearings in those villages.

Comparison is often made between Prudhoe Bay development with the Central Arctic Caribou herd and the potential development in the Gods talwep laine wil tlhweenemeOLcCUpINe » Gari DOUMmnehd mln Ses S du very, misleading comparison. The Porcupine herd is 15 times larger and occupies its range 14 times more densely than the Central Arctic herd [Whitten and Cameron, 1985]. The Prudhoe Bay development did displace Central Arctic herd calving activity, although the area was never considered a concentrated calving area. Only a small portion of the calving grounds were developed and the Central Arctic herd has other suitable calving areas including the 1002 area of the refuge. The Central Arctic herd is not yet

UsiicmcheLimnavarhab les nabubat, to) Capacity. Ihe dipterences sin

5/87-285 2





wm > Py?

ite) ian


7 ~~

¢ > , 2 7

7 a


-. ao

the Central Arctic herd and Porcupine caribou herd are substan- tale Liers @ulicclentuaitc andmsinappropriate. sto, repeat ‘the rhetoric that development of Prudhoe Bay demonstrates compatibil- ity of oil development with fish and wildlife resources and the

needs of subsistence users on the whole North Slope.

The Porcupine Caribou have calved in the 1002 area of the refuge every year since observations have been made (1972 to present). Up to half of the Central Arctic herd may calve there each summer as well. Nearly 402 of the concentrated calving area could be affected according to the final resource assessment. Use of 29-52 percent of the insect relief habitats could be substantial- ly reduced according to the report as well. Both displacement from the most suitable calving and insect relief lands to less desirable lands will significantly weaken the herd and alter its distribution. As the resource assessment states, "all biologists participating in the Fish and Wildlife service workshop agreed that displacement from areas of human activity related to oil and

gas activities would occur".

A change in distribution of the herd, shifting generally to the east. tore -examp leymacouLd aesultuein supmsecomeae 1007 losses of@the animals’ to subsistence ~hunters #~in) Arcticy Village ‘and Venetie™ Yet, the Environmental Impact Statement fails to discuss at all, the socioeconomic effects oil development in the Coastal Plan

could have on Arctic Village and Venetie.

There are many conclusions in the resource assessment that reasonably indicate that the Porcupine caribou herd will change its distribution patterns and suffer some decline in population.

Among some of those conclusions are:

Dee LOlmaLOSSes ner SQmande Wildiitegsand witdl temresource: subsistence uses and wilderness values on the 1002 area would be the consequence of a long-term commitment to

oil and gas development in the area."

5/87-285 4

pg. 139 Reductions in fish and wildlife populations, displace- MentesOt mec Shmrand WiLdbvremmiromesareas@eotetradmey ona | harvest’ and “reduced access to those resources’ will

adversely affect subsistence uses."

pg. 123 "Major effects on the Porcupine Caribou herd could result if the entire 1002 area were leased and all oil

prospects contained economically recoverable oil."

pg. 124 "A change in distribution of the Porcupine Caribou herd

could reasonably be expected."

pe. 125) 9... slossmof importantehabitat has been shown to have major negative effects on ungulates fer er.

Caribou |=!

pg. 140 "Residents of Arctic Village, Alaska and Old Crow, Fort McPherson, and Aklavik, Canada could experience some reduced subsistence harvest as a result of potential effects on Porcupine Caribou distributions or possible

population declines." andeso) forth:

At the full board meeting of 43 Tanana Chiefs Conference villages in March of 1987, a resolution was adopted requesting impact funds appropriated through lease sales specifically for an appropriate substitute food production program in Arctic Village and Venetie. Such a program may include buffalo, muskox, or moose husbandry programs. Any program must provide for the future generation as the damage to the herd could be long- standing or irreversible. The resolution further requests impact aid for the Tanana Chiefs region for mitigation of adverse impacts through land and resource use planning and, for employ- ment training and placement services. A copy of this resolution

TSeaAtLaCned con Git smscacenence

5/87-285 4

The Tanana Chiefs Conference concludes that the Porcupine Caribou herd distribution patterns would be altered and the population would likely decline should oil development occur on the coastal plain, even with known mitigation techniques in place. In conclusion, (1) a detailed socioeconomic study of Arctic Village and Venetie is lacking, (2) hearings must be held in these affected communities, and (3) if Congress decides to open the area for further oil exploration and development impact aid must be granted specifically for Arctic Village, Venetie and the Tanana Chiefs region to ensure the survival of those villages dependent upon the herd.

5/87-285 5


Resolution No. 87-64 Support Village Hearings Re: Opening ANWR to Oil Exploration

WHEREAS , the Tanana Chiefs Conference is a tribal organization authorized by the tribal governments of the villages in the TCC region; and

WHEREAS , opening the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska is not in the best interest of the member villages without having hearings in the affected villages of Alaska and Canada; and

WHEREAS , there has been only one hearing held at a location which permitted access to the decision making process by rural Alaskans; and

WHEREAS , this issue directly affects the cultural and subsistence life- styles of rural Alaskans and Canadians;

NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Tanana Chiefs Conference Board of Directors opposes the opening of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge until proper hearings have been held in Alaska; and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the report to Congress be delayed until the hearings are held in all the affected villages and can be incorporated into the report.


I hereby certify that this resolution.was duly passed by the Tanana Chiefs Conference, Inc. Board of Directors on March 19, 1987 at Fairbanks, Alaska and a quorum was duly established.

Daisy Northway) . i Secretary-—Treasurer Submitted by: Yukon Flats Tanana Chiefs Conference, Inc.

& Youth Delegates


\ en)

GAT: oe ee, "ey -) vs 7 iv)


Resolution No. 87-65 Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR)

WHEREAS , the villages of Arctic Village and Venetie in the Tanana Chiefs region, as well as the Canadian Village of Old Crow are extremely dependent upon the population and distribution of the Porcupine Cariboumherdmas sas matter Oruecornomics.s nUucrition, wand cultural heritage; and

WHEREAS, the Porcupine Caribou herd contributes a majority of the nutri- tional requirements of Arctic Village, Venetie, and Old Crow and a significant economic contribution to several other Tanana Chiefs villages; and

WHEREAS , current governmental reports indicate that the Porcupine Caribou herd could suffer as much as a 40% population declines and/or change in migration paths due to oil and gas exploration and development in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR); and

WHEREAS , other Tanana Chiefs communities would be impacted by increased traffic in the Utility Corridor should such development were to OCCUrL- sand

WHEREAS, exploitation of rural resources should accrue to the benefit of rural citizens,

NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Tanana Chiefs Conference directs the TCC to advocate on behalf of the consideration for the maximum protection for the Porcupine Caribou calving and habitat areas within the ANWR in conjunction with any oil and gas exploration development in the ANWR;

AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that should development occur, that the villages of Arctic Village, Venetie, and Old Crow receive impact funds for an appropriate substitute food production program to meet the needs of the future as well as the present in a manner which will enable the village to be as self-sufficient in food production as presently possible;

AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that should development occur, hiring practices for exploration and development include 100% Alaskan hire with a Native preference;

AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Tanana Chiefs Conference shall seek impact aid for the TCC region and its villages for mitigation of adverse impacts through land and resource use planning and, for employment training and placement services.



I hereby certify that this resolution was duly passed by the Tanana Chiefs Conference, Inc. Board of Directors on March 19, 1987 at Fairbanks, Alaska and a quorum was duly established.

Dai thwa'

sy Secyetary-Treagurer Submitted by: Yukon Flats Tanana Chiefs


TANANA CHIEFS CONFERENCE, INC. Board of Directors Letter of Intent to Accompany Tanana Chiefs Conference, Inc. Board of Directors Resolution #87- lo4 Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR)

It is clear that the Villages of Arctic Villages, Venetie, and Old Crow could experience a multi-generation taking of subsistence hunting of caribou with the exploration and development of oil and gas in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR). Such development would result in the planned destruction of up to an estimated 402 of the Porcupine Caribou herd.! If the herd altered its migra- tion path as much as 40% it could mean up to a 1002 reduction in available animals to those villages. Each one of those villages is heavily economically dependent upon the Porcupine Caribou herd for its nutritional and cultural requirements. To a lesser degree, the Villages of Fort Yukon and Chalkyitsik are economically tied to the herd as well. In contrast, the Village of Kaktovik has used the Central Arctic herd for the past 4-5 years and at varying times before that as well. The Arctic Coastal plain villages have available sea life and North Slope Borough tax base to supplement their needs. Arctic Village, Venetie, and Old Crow do not have alternative local resources, and the proposed develop- ment would not occur in a manner which would enhance any tax base available to these villages, so that these villages will not benefit from development as has the North Slope communities. These villages would be in an extremely desperate economic-nutritional situation without the Porcupine Caribou herd.

Should development occur in ANWR, compensation must be made to affected villages out of the proceeds from the lease sales in ANWR. These funds could be put into a trust fund for an appropriate substitute food production program. Such a program may include buffalo, muskox, or moose husbandry programs. Any program must provide for the future generation and not only the present as the damage to the herd could be long-standing or irreversible.

Exploration and development, if and whenever it may occur, must be done in the most environmentally protective manner possible even if such development

methods are more expensive. Any exploration or development of the ANWR oil and

: The 402 figure is taken from the draft "Arctic National Wildlife Refuge

Coastal Plain Resource Assessment", more commonly known as the "1002 Report”.


TANANA CHIEFS CONFERENCE, INC. Board of Directors gas resources will be at the expense of the Porcupine Caribou herd. ‘The herd would not calve in and utilize that ecological niche without a sound ecological reason. The water quality in the development area will also be endangered triggering a variety of impacts in the food chain upon which the village depends.

Other villages in the Tanana Chiefs region will be affected by increased traffic in the Utility Corridor. Villagers farther away will be impacted as any other State citizen as decision makers regarding the easiest and best use of non-renewable resources.

If oil and gas exploration and/or oil and gas exploration is allowed to occur in ANWR, the Tanana Chiefs Conference will seek impact aid for the region for land and resource use planning and for employment training and placement services. With development of the field all of the TCC villages would be affec- ted, some severely and others less so. This regional impact aid will Mitigate

these impacts and will allow local benefit for this development.



Mr. Chairman, Members of the Committee, I am Milton Freeman. In this testimony before you, I have chosen to be brief rather than discursive as the issues I choose to address are straightforward, and much of what I could report, second-hand as it were, will be heard by you first hand during the subsequent public testimony phase of these hearings.

Over the past fifteen years there have been many social impact assessments made in both the U.S. and Canada that bear on these present hearings, for the Northern regions of our continent have felt the quickened pact of industrial development, whether in the form of massive hydro-electric developments or proposals for mining, hydrocarbon or transportation developments. In nearly every case a coalition of groups, representing native residents of the region, environmentalists, church groups, academics and assorted other public interest bodies have counselled extreme caution, if not implacable opposition, to the proposed developments. Why should this be so and why does this continue to be so? Surely after so many earlier attempts to push the industrial frontier north, we must have learned something of how to do it right? The reason petitioners continue to urge caution is not because we have learned nothing, for certainly we have, but rather that the stakes are so high should the predicted negative impacts

come to pass. You may ask, why -- if we have learned from our

; + ; ; he ae . ra irae i er ae iy a 7 L . gas 0 *t. (Sie ee . : | . =. Tie ; 5 iv j = a +e | ss -_ 7 - 4 2 or) a , ¥ L - » Uy i Ag : - ae a yy oC 2 - ' - 7 - > - 7 : On a > © = - , Ps Ris 7 ~~ - ji 7 r é 4l wry a) 7 , y y ° 2} : a 7 ro) a a | 7 =

A aa ITT Obey


past experiences -- why are mistakes still made? The answer is

are exceedingly complex and simple: there are classes of problems in this world which\have no technical solution. This is not to say there are no remedies to such problems but merely that there is no quick fix, no easily advanced or surefire solution. We can think of many such no-technical solution problems closer to home: unwanted pregnancy, urban violence, chronic youth employment, sexual and physical abuse of children -- the list goes on and on. There may be solutions, but they seem a long time in coming, and according to many official reports, despite our seemingly best attempts to resolve the problems they do not appear to become less common with each passing year.

The fact is that societies are not machines, in the sense that one can diagnose the cause of the problem, take remedial action and presto -- all works like clockwork once again. Human societies -- even those appearing most simple -- are the most complex, variable, and unpredictable of all ecological systems, and despite their inherent powers of overcoming internally and externally posed perturbations within a certain range, there are finite limits of stress whose thresholds can be exceeded often without too much advance warning.

It is for this particular reason, namely the high cost incurred in societal breakdown, the extreme difficulty of effecting social reconstruction following such breakdown, and the ensuing human casualties and losses whose presences and

absences respectively persist long after the event, it is for

3 these reasons that I spoke of the high risk involved. Scientists and technicians may speak reassuringly of the high degree of certainty their present environmental studies and the sophistication of their technology affords their predictions of control over the events developmental actions may precipitate. However, no true scientist can speak of absolute certainty, only of probabilistic outcomes, and these estimates as refined as they may be in many fields of laboratory science, are still woefully crude when applied predictively to ecological problems. And we must remember that the stochastic or random behavior of many natural events are even more random and unpredictable in the case of human behavior, of human societies' responses to change. This means, simply, that we cannot say how much stress can be tolerated before a society's ability to cope is exceeded, nor can we say how much of what kind of remediation will be required to restore society to its former state of well-being. In the case of small rural communities, we might reasonably conclude that the presumed cure would be a great deal worse than the malady, in terms of long-term intrusive impact. Given all this and the inherent uncertainty of outcome, public policy should presumably aim to sustain a society's own institutional capacity to endure change, rather than try to second guess its tolerance level with the fanciful expectation that any problem caused can be attended to after the fact. If such social and personal

problems associated with stress in our own cultural and social

> an : é

: - . alae

a ~ mit

‘s be > ov. Ay | i) - of ¥ g. tal

_ 7 7 | ; 7 i) * : 7) 7

DS : A = wi z, Viel a : Doe 7 oar - ipa as

ay as 7 er ee a” 7 oa ne ¥ i< = 7 nee’ > feu 9 Me SI oa z. vanes - ty

nee in,

4 milieu, prove difficult to remedy after the fact, it isa matter of record that they are that much more refractory in social and cultural settings that operate according to quite different and distinctive rules, values, and ideologies from those of the so-called helping professions.

What sort of societal dislocations am I speaking of here, and what sort of externally-mediated impacts could be experienced by residents of Alaskan and Canadian arctic and subarctic communities? The impacts will, I am sure be eloquently enumerated before you by mainly native American and Canadian residents of the region, as will be the anticipated consequences of these impacts. So I will be brief on these points here, but will merely mention the threatened loss of livelihood, of autonomy, of self-worth, of human dignity, that follows from damage to a way of life. Make no mistake, we are

of economic loss, but not merely speaking/of loss of a total and preferred way of life, a loss that affects a person's psychic and spiritual, as well as their physical being. Such an assault on the human person, indeed on human rights, is not ordinarily expected within a tolerant, caring, democratic tradition, at least not today even though regrettably, in the past such happenings were common enough.

To some it is sufficient to invoke the "national interest" to justify the sacrifices the minority must make for the good of the common wealth. Alaskans have lived through many "boom

and bust" cycles, as have Yukoners and residents of other

. a . a

7 a env : 7 “s et a oe _ > le

- _ =




However interesting this numbers speculation may be it isn't particularly relevant to the critical issue Congress must decide. Whether the 1002 Coastal Plain contains some or a lot of oil the issue remains just the same. It is this. Should we, under any set of reasonable ball-park assumptions about the

oil potential of 1002, compromise the integrity of this rare ecosystem in order

to extract it?

Those who say yes claim the national security is at risk and it is urgent we move promptly to protect ourselves against all kinds of dire circumstances. If, indeed, the security of the nation actually turns on finding a six- or 12- month supply of ofl in this Arctic Wildlife Refuge then the battle has already been lost. This, of course, is pure nonsense. Six years ago Interior Secretary Watt used that argument to justify his proposal to open designated wilderness areas for gas and oil] leasing. Congress didn't buy his argument and three times passed riders on appropriations bills to prohibit leasing. This year Interior

Secretary Hodel is back with Jim Watt's national security argument again.

One is entitled to wonder about this Administration's concern over energy security when it is noted that it has no long-term energy conservation plan, no long-term alternative energy policy, vigorously opposed legislation to increase the energy efficiency of appliances and rolled back the mandated automobile

mileage standard from 27.5 miles to 26.

In 1985 the Department of Energy stated that energy conservation "has

proven to be the most expeditious way to reduce the need for new or imported




Everyone is familiar with the statistical speculation about the oi] potential of the 1.5 million acre coastal plain of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. The 1002 Assessment states that there is a 19 percent chance that a commercially producible supply of oi] might be found. If such discovery is made, then design models make fietier percentage predictions of how much oil might be produced at certain inflation rates and price assumptions. Under one scenario, if commercially producible oi] is found the model predicts a 75% chance of finding 1.12 billion barrels of oi1; a 50% change of finding 2.21 billion barrels; a 25% chance of finding 4.24 billion barrels. None of these numbers mean very much. At best they are guesses based upon the careful weighing of a collection of imponderables. The last estimates of this kind that I recall were in the National Petroleum Reserve--Alaska report which concluded there was a 97 percent likelihood of finding producible oil. This field, located just west of Prudhoe Bay, was expected to contain three times a much oi] as the current predictions for the Coastal Plain. The reality is this: 39 holes have been drilled, and each one has been dry. The oil industry is no longer bidding

on leases for this field.

1400 EYEOSTREET, N.W. WASHINGT ON, DeGe 20005 (202) 842-3400

because it happened after it was established as ANWR, when they stopped or limited use of the land. There are some animals that are not back in size yet, even after 17 years of ANWR. All the time my family lived as subsistence living between 1950-64, there's hardly any living things, so a lot of times we have to do without. We lost a lot of living things from birds to fish to flies, when one of the Great change came to us, when fur money was booming. They poisoned a lot of small and large animals, and they used poison for.bait. That was way before 1950. So, it's finally regained its living things. Let's just give this land time to regain its living things before another Great change, like maybe never do it again. So, if you judge a land by the abundance of living things as the good health of a land. That 902 of Alaska is wilderness is not true.

We have Indian dance we greatly respect. We dance apex dance. We imitate caribou movement in various patterns, noise and eating, we do other dance, caribou skin hut dance. To do this dance, we dance in circles in the pattern of support poles forma- tion, we stop and go, we yell 'hee' of opening and closing the door to welcome you to our home. With this, I close saying How! Heel! Aho!

Thank you.


In order to get here, I am losing working time (leave without pay) because I already used up my annual and sick leave time doing this type of work to represent my people. I have passed the hat among eight different organizations to make collection enough for the fare.

If caribou is increase, it's no number to where they stampede like they did in the past, that's when we talk about caribou that tell us that its number is down, that's why we are not excited until we see stampede.

I grew up as a subsistence user. My parents grew up as subsistence life. My parents are not educated in western way, but they are well educated in Indian way of life, which makes them highly intelligent of what is going on around them.

My people believe in environmental value, believes in preserv- ing environmental value. How do you think they preserve environmen- tal value for the last century or so. After the non-Indian came along, there is much damage and misuse of the land and living things and mistakes. Before that time, my ancestor, they are very cautious in preserving the environment. For example, wherever they went, they don't leave any trace behind. Up to today, my people still teach it as practiced it the best they know how because their life depend on it and for their children's future. They got environmental mind in order to survive. Subsistence practice is so close to it because we don't take more than we need. It's based on need. So land to be Wilderness designated with additional subsis- tence provision is more likely to be accepted.

The Arctic Refuge is not abundant with wildlife as our ances-

tors have described. The only reason caribou increase in size is


among the Natives. We know this when someone is dying, if he ask for certain Native food (I had experience with patient dying with cancer) we go obtain that food for him, after he eats it, would go back to normal without pain, he gets up happy and talking, then he die.

I am telling you all this because being here a few days this issue about Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, Arctic Coastal area. Seems like there are more questions than there are answers. If you ask me, my answer is no exploration/development for gas and oil in Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in 1002 Arctic Coastal area. In Arctic Village people are totally against development of gas and oil within the whole Arctic Coastal plain because caribou have calves there, for centuries they don't concentrate to one area which they use for calving, they use the whole area in various areas each year. If there is ___ calving area, we would have solved the problem already. All we had to do was fence them in and provide food for them during calving season. This animal just don't faithfully go to same place year after year. So there is no alternative but leave them alone, let nature take its course.

I feel like I ignored of my existence, I feel like I was not represented very well. We ask for hearing in Arctic Village to express our concern because we cannot afford to go where they set up hearings, but got no response. We got here, I found a lot of Congressional people not aware of our existence and concerns. The people that will make decision if Arctic Coastal plain should open up for exploration and development of gas and oil or not. I brought some arts and crafts and material made with caribou skin

and so forth just to prove we do use caribou every day of our life.




June 4, 1987

"Mr. Chairman, my relatives, brothers and sisters, elders, people, friends, chiefs (leaders), I am happy to be here. I came from a long way. I want you to listen to what I have to say. (first spoken in my language, Gwitchin, then translated in English. )

My name is Sarah James. I am from Arctic Village, Alaska. Arctic Village is located in a remote, rural area.

I said this because it's located at a unique location 118 miles northeast of the Arctic Circle, whose only transportation is by small bush planes; no road, no waterway. It takes three house to get to a hospital, regardless of the situation.

Being a Village Health Aide, I study nutrition at the Alaska Native Medical Center, Anchorage, Alaska. Caribou has the highest nutrition value. They have to study Native food value because they deal with village people.

Language is important to SCE We speak our language. English is our second language, our government system is different. Records show among the Natives in Alaska and here, too, I guess, the suicide, alcohol problems, diabetes is high, but we don't have that problem between Arctic Village and Venetie Health Aide since 1970. I never really had to deal with low iron deficiencies in Arctic Village. When some of you get up there, you will see we are

talented, artistic and musical. Native food works wonders for use


Tet KY, Lig sAL Ad

y » : er : “4 es aie %, is i co he eines wy? i he ohh! re 7 . Dan tf

- oe i et a) % in


4 J an ows} j - = eal Cl i. “a ;



This position was taken after careful omsideraticn and discussion with our elders.

Our people are basically caribou dependant. For generations, we have depended cn the porapine caribou herd for survival. They are basis of or very life. It fed, sheltered and clothed aor ancestors and continues to provide for our families today. The very laatim of ar vill@e is sitiated m good hunting grounds.

Around aur village are remains of caribou fences alder thai 300 years. They still point in direction, the caaribou move today. This shows how the caribou omtinuss to travel thrash Arctic Village to Support our peonle.

Arctic Village is located in the south montains of the Brooks Range. Salmens co mt travel this far up river, because of falls further down the river. We get a Limited amont of moose ard deep, SD we depend mainly cm caribou. If they declined oc move their migration route away from ar village, we would be in a desperate situation. There are almost no 3s in ar regim and costs are hich.

For example, chicken cost over $3.00 a pod amd gasoline is $3.4 per gall. These are de to SeS HSSSSeE) GHGS Gop etiorien fio Gen cece oe weer a idicg.

For this reason, we do mot want to see any explacatim amd dcevelanment cn the ARCTIC NATIONML WILDLIFE REFUGE.

Cipiil 30 57


MAY 5 1987

Tc¢ Realty

; ame,


*) he: Wa : ¥ ae, S ve 3 A) oe iyi

¥ , t me

adi Me res wee, 4, oe s: a a bai bipWe “o Hit Bye it > A vas . pers tw gens be wy th sae Palak 10 ia : yay | 3 th a

au ae ee ue |

1 = ae | fe a Mah o ae, ; t iy ¥ % V ¥ ‘- T |

_— rs rv

aay 4


ri y f u i » p. i . 7 iA A ; é J A & * ir * 4 » , ¥g\ f _s h iy J : ne! ¥ A :

is av ' ¢ Ay yi iy isk wi

8 seriously involve the native residents of the region in your deliberations. This particular instance, the proposal to open the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to industrial development provides an interesting test of the usefulness of the Bruntland report (on Environment and Development) and the newly-revised World Conservation Strategy, both of which enlightened reports I am certain the United States officially endorses. Bruntland speaks of sustainable development, and according to the World Conservation Strategy that is what conservation is all about. But both go further in that they link conservation inextricably with concerns about equity and social justice. Those who expect the United States will provide enlightened and strong leadership in respect to the stewardship of our beleaguered global environment, will doubtless look to this ANWR outcome to see if the U.S. is as resolute at home as it expects others to be elsewhere in the appropriate disposition of our common environment.

Thank you.

mee, 4) Ay)


; f = “— ; , ¥. ahs : ae iy if , ; z atin had ce a a Ss Ay, Se i We be bait te. Wha? ths : * °a ( A. f] 5

; rr 1 ie Cam ete wie) a Pe hae ant c.\) a ee) oe " ' oa ra tie y whe, ea ry ew pe; : yy oy wie ays See

+ the outcome. In this case, given the many interrelated variables involved, the optimum pace of change is best gauged intuitively from within the society rather than be technical or other means from without. And finally, we now understand "development" to be not an event, but rather a process: it is a process that enriches, that strengthens, that empowers people to take control over their lives. To the extent that investment on the frontier immiserates, weakens, and strips people of their humanity, it cannot be considered development and it is to be deplored -- no matter how many others gain material riches from the enterprise. No massive industrial development with potential for great harm can surely be contemplated in this day and age, without every consideration being given to the environmental and social costs likely to be incurred. My conclusion, as a social scientist and ecologist is that the best information to be provided in your quest for a reasonable solution will come from the statements you will receive from northern residents, and not from academically-trained outsiders. When the so-called experts disagree among themselves -- as I'm sure they will continue to do -- the surest path to correct solution is the one with the strongest moral underpinning. The enduring spirituality of native Americans, which is so strongly manifest today, provides the respected members of this Committee and your congressional colleagues, with an assurance as to the correct path to

follow. Discerning this path however, will require that you


war? ||P het


Side ) fia i. re



6 who hoped to see jobs created in their villages to enable them to purchase such needed equipment as guns, boats, motors, snow machines, household appliances, and all the other consumer items people now depend upon. The warning about disruption to the assured supply of key subsistence resources came not just from social scientists who theorize in their warm and distant academic nooks, not from public-spirited and sometimes misguided urban-based romantics who think of life in rural Alaska or the Yukon in only the rosiest of terms.

In case I am mistakenly cast in the role of such a redundant outsider, let me explain my presence today in the following way. I am not here to anticipate or attempt to provide scholarly justification for the testimony you will be presented with next week, but rather to voice concern lest this subsequent evidence not be accorded appropriate weight when the decisions have to be made. The reason I say this is because though social scientists know so very little about the mechanics of social change and far less about how to predict outcomes in such changed situations, there are some things that now seem accepted. The first, which has direct bearing on this committee's responsibilities, is that if social change is directed from within a society (rather than from without) the ensuing adjustments are most likely to be accommodative to the needs of society, more likely to be effective and enduring than when imposed from without. The second relevant factor appears

to relate to the pace of change in determining the nature of

nia Das ee is

q ; u Pa A ‘ay ‘- : Ve Gees lz J wt Ay rhe ; : ( ee J Fe . 14 : t f 7] 1 en ie i me Mend ay a. F - t ipa} , ; aw aes y sins iy imo) 8 r ; 4 yt it " ike iy fi sf 7 ea ; ! is 4 '

Dg! oT ape ae ‘¥ . } De \ i ( i ; ¢ s tes r wert | i * rf Ww " alg é " ; » 3 ' mM a* fa ; :

Fi a ai A hs ‘° 1 a oe an) agree mays my et my Fauat yi Ne Jad, t M yi a) a AY sg) ee Mle 4S oo Wy ay fo ha ieee b> i we : A ¥ " o as é -) i, 7 on i i \ rf van ¢ o ; . ws & ( 1 4 De A, " is & + : pa! a eat Va ve e

th wale Shae

° we

a 1 of vy

\ i oe | ait, it , tees ; } ls i aia a ty Pm” lad hia phi

ey; = ah, pee te ao oa - a's ai ~ as Ge ies ta”

tes nme elie. 4g abied

whe :

5 frontier regions. The booms may be munificent -- for some --