Initial Report and Recommendations - Alaska Department of Law

Great contrast exists today between the high income, moderate standard ofliving, and existence of reasonable opportunity of most Alaskans and theappallingly low income and standard of living and the virtual absence ofopportunity for most Eskimos, Indians, and Aleuts in Alaska. About fourfifthsof the more than one-quarter million people of Alaska are not AlaskaNatives. Most of them, living in or near urban places, lead lives verymuch like those of other Americans. . . . The other one-fifth . . . live inwidely scattered settlements, are unemployed or only seasonally employed. . . live in poverty . . . in small dilapidated or substandard houses underunsanitary conditions . . . are victims of disease, and their life span ismuch shorter than that of other Alaskans. . . . They are not onlyundereducated for the modern world, but they are living where adequateeducation or training cannot be obtained, where there are few jobs, wherelittle or no economic growth is taking place, and where little growth isforecast. 22Fortunately, conditions have improved somewhat in rural Alaska over the last 37years, but there is still a great disparity between rural and urban Alaska in all thingseconomic. In 1989, over 20 years after the Federal Field Commission report, the AlaskaFederation of Natives published its report on the status of Alaska Natives, A Call forAction, which reiterated the earlier report (and, for that matter, dozens of other reportsthat had been published in the interim), noting that “despite investment in infrastructureand education, in most Native communities the increase in self-sustaining economicgrowth has been minimal. When Native population growth is factored into the equation,the future is even more disconcerting.” 23 “This was followed by a report presented in1991 by the Alaska Department of Commerce and Economic Development, entitledAlaska's Economic Challenge: The Level of Distress, which reported:Unfortunately, the fact remains that conditions in the rural areas are notgetting better. The economic prosperity of the recent pipeline constructionera has had little lasting effect on many rural areas. They continue asbefore with high unemployment and low median incomes. State andfederal disputes over regulation of subsistence, boycotts on the furindustry, international socioeconomics, and dozens of road [b]locks facerural Alaska. The population continues to struggle with limited resourcestrying to find a degree of stability.” 24Also in 1991, the Alaska Department of Community and Regional Affairspublished a report, Towards a Comprehensive Alaska Rural Development Strategy, whichoutlined and discussed barriers restricting the economy of rural Alaska. These included:1. Rural financing barriers (capital constraints)222324Arnold, R.D., et al. Alaska Natives and the Land. Federal Field Committee for Development Planningin Alaska. Washington, D.C.: United States Government Printing Office, 1968: p. 3.The AFN Report on the Status of Alaska Natives: A Call for Action. Anchorage, Alaska: AlaskaFederation of Natives, 1989: p. 29.Alaska Natives Commission Final Report, Volume II, op cit., p. 84.Alaska Rural Justice and Law Enforcement Commission - Page 19