Ak Hunting News: Interview: Taking the Subsistence Suit to the Supreme Court
This news clip is from Alaska Hunting News. Discussion is welcome, but these robot generated news threads are not monitored by the webmaster.
Warren Olson is a long time Alaskan deeply involved in a lawsuit intended to force the federal government to manage hunting and fishing on its lands based on equal protection.
The suit was dismissed in the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals earlier this month. In this interview, Olson talks about the suit and how it could provide all Americans equal access to the resources on all the lands of Alaska.
For more information about this issue, Warren Olson can be contacted at 1.907.346.4440 in Anchorage. Olson reports that it is possible to contribute to this cause with a tax deductible donation to the Alaska Constitutional Legal Defense Conservation Fund, PO Box 110551, Anchorage, AK 99511.
Read the individual article on Alaska Hunting News...
We welcome news tips that are useful to the community. Please send tips and links to complete stories by email to firstname.lastname@example.org.
warren olson, mcdowell, bondurant and others have selflessly given thousands of hours and their own money to see this issue through the court system. one can hope that there is some common sense beyond the ninth circuit level to recognize equal protection of all citizens, rural or not.
I agree 100%.
Originally Posted by sh
Kudos to David for the good interview with Warren.
Thought some of you guys might find this interesting reading:
I followed Henry Reid's bill as it made its way through Congress, in response (and retaliation) to the 9th Circuit ruling in the USO lawsuit that said hunting was "commerce" and that individual states were unfairly discriminating against non-resident hunters with tag allocations. All this relates to the subsistence suit in some way. And now that Reid's bill is law, it has interesting ramifications. Worthy of note is that the Bondurant/Olson suit is also about unfairly discriminating against non-resident hunters. Previously I've mentioned that this could be a gamble in some ways. Should the case ever make it to the Supreme Court (I doubt it will), it has the potential to change how we allocate non-resident permits in Alaska on fed lands. That's one of the downsides I see, similar to the USO lawsuit. Had the Subsistence Act not been repealed after the McDowell case, it's likely that at the very least the state would be managing all the state's wildlife. I know this is about "principle" and all, and I am with Olson and others on that, but sometimes these court cases end up biting us in the butt in other ways down the line.
Some of you may know this, but many folks pleaded with Murkowski and the Repulican-led legislature for the state to join Bondurant/Olson in this lawsuit. They refused. Interesting reading there too in the legislative minutes, when Heimer testified about this. Another good read:
Having forum glitches...it posted twice so editing the second one out.
Last edited by bushrat; 08-29-2006 at 11:57.
Reason: double post