Program Review---Subsistence Management for Public Lands in Alaska

The Kachemak Bay Watershed Council and the Norton Bay Watershed Council are advocating to maintain the current structure of the Federal Subsistence Board (FSB) and the Office of Subsistence Management (OSM). They specifically oppose removing public and tribal seats from the FSB, deferring to state regulations, or moving the OSM from its current location within the Department of the Interior.

Safari Club International, a nonprofit organization advocating for hunters' rights and conservation, supports the program review as an opportunity to reform the Federal Subsistence Management Program. They argue that the current system exceeds the authority granted by ANILCA and advocate for restructuring the Federal Subsistence Board, increasing deference to the State of Alaska's management expertise, and eliminating redundant federal regulations.

The Sitka Conservation Society, a nonprofit conservation organization, supports the Federal Subsistence Management Program (FSMP) and its current structure. They argue that the program must maintain its rural designation, protect meaningful representation for rural and Alaska Native residents on advisory boards, and strengthen Tribal co-management partnerships and youth engagement.

Earthjustice, a nonprofit public interest environmental law organization, urges the Departments of the Interior and Agriculture to prioritize rural subsistence rights over state management as required by ANILCA. They argue that the Departments must maintain public and tribally-nominated seats on the Federal Subsistence Board and preserve membership criteria for regional advisory councils to ensure meaningful participation by Alaska Native and rural residents.

The Bering Straits Native Corporation opposes the proposed alterations to the Federal Subsistence Board membership and the relocation of the Office of Subsistence Management. They argue that maintaining the current board structure and the OSM's current office location is essential for protecting rural subsistence priorities and ensuring administrative efficiency.

Safari Club International, a nonprofit organization advocating for hunters' rights and conservation, supports the program review to align federal subsistence management with the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA). They argue for reducing federal overreach by restructuring the Federal Subsistence Board, requiring meaningful consultation with the State of Alaska, and eliminating redundant federal regulations.

Kuukpik Corporation, representing the Alaska Native Village of Nuigsut, supports maintaining the current structure of the Federal Subsistence Management Program and the Federal Subsistence Board. They argue against any changes that would reduce rural subsistence priorities, eliminate public/tribal seats on the board, or shift authority to the State of Alaska, emphasizing that such actions would jeopardize food security and cultural continuity for rural Alaska Native communities.

The Alaska Outdoor Council, a statewide conservation organization, opposes the current federal subsistence management structure, arguing that it creates unnecessary bureaucracy, duplicates state-level management, and discriminates against non-federally qualified users. They call for the dissolution of the Federal Subsistence Board (FSB) and the Regional Advisory Councils (RACs), requesting that the federal government instead rely on state-led management and data-driven science.

Marilyn Sigman, representing the nonprofit Friends of Alaska National Wildlife Refuges, supports the current structure of the Federal Subsistence Management Program and opposes any changes that would weaken subsistence protections for rural residents. The organization advocates for maintaining current regulation processes and requests greater transparency and Tribal consultation in future proposals.

The Gates of the Arctic National Park Subsistence Resource Commission (SRC) supports the Secretarial Review of the Federal Subsistence Management Program. They argue that rural membership on the Regional Advisory Councils and the Federal Subsistence Board is essential for providing continuity, local knowledge, and upholding the requirements of ANILCA.