AFN urging full court press to oppose Safari Club petition and defend Native-only subsistence

By SUZANNE DOWNING

The Alaska Federation of Natives is mobilizing its membership to weigh in against a petition filed by the Safari Club International that asks the US Department of the Interior to limit race-based distinctions from federal subsistence management in Alaska.

In a holiday-season letter sent to members this week, AFN President Ben Mallott called the Safari Club petition an existential threat to what AFN calls the “inherent rights” of Alaska Native peoples to hunt, fish, and gather.

He urged tribes, regions, Alaska Native corporations, and individuals to submit comments during Interior’s newly opened 60-day scoping period and to request formal tribal consultation.

“Any erosion of this system is unacceptable,” Mallott wrote, warning that Interior is considering changes that could “significantly” limit the membership and authority of the Federal Subsistence Board.

In fact, the changes requested to the subsistence board involve simply having members elected rather than appointed. It’s a modest proposal by Safari Club International.

AFN argues that even though the current federal framework is imperfect, losing the rural subsistence priority would seriously harm Native communities’ ability to continue traditional practices.

The Safari Club petition, now before Interior, wants more balance in the existing structure that prioritizes subsistence uses on federal lands in Alaska. Safari Club also wants more state input from the Alaska Department of Fish and Game, while AFN opposes state involvement.

AFN’s position calls for a “Native Framework for subsistence” that explicitly recognizes distinct rights for Alaska Native peoples, not merely rural residents, when it comes to managing lands and resources.

In other words, all Americans are equal but some are more equal than others. The organization is seeking special treatment based on race, elevating Native hunting and fishing rights above those of other rural Alaskans who also rely on public lands. Alaska Native leaders believe subsistence is rooted in history, culture, and federal law, and that treating Native communities the same as all other users would erase legally recognized distinctions.

In the letter, AFN laid out specific talking points for members’ comments, including retaining all public members on the Federal Subsistence Board, keeping the Office of Subsistence Management within Interior’s current organizational structure, opposing a seat for the State of Alaska on the board, and maintaining the board’s special action authority.

AFN also emphasized that Interior is likely to track the volume of comments submitted, encouraging individuals and organizations to file separately rather than jointly.

This current scoping phase is only the first step in the federal process and that another, and more a formal comment period will follow if Interior itself proposes rule changes. Still, Mallot advises that early input will help shape what the department ultimately considers.

AFN also pointed members to its 2024 resolution that outlines the organization’s vision for a Native-led subsistence system, and provided a template comment letter to streamline participation.

As Interior weighs the Safari Club petition, the clash highlights a long-running tension in Alaska: whether subsistence management should be based on geography and lifestyle alone, or whether Alaska Native peoples should continue to be treated as a distinct class with separate rights when it comes to hunting, fishing, and gathering on federal lands.