Since the subject of rural subsistence has been broached I wish to discuss something that has been mentioned many times in various threads. Specifically the notion that a person chooses the subsistence lifestyle. Certainly any individual can choose to leave the grid and make, or try to make a life for themselves in the bush, and they can choose to depend primarily on fish and game for their sustenance.
This aspect seems to be the basis of the argument some have presented against policies that allow for subsistence user preference. I feel this is wrong, both perceptually and empirically. It's wrong because while there are a handful of people who meet the description above, most subsistence users were born to that life. Furthermore this idea ignores the basic reality of average human social pathology...on a macro level, historically, human beings live the majority of their lives near where they were raised. They also tend to rely on the cultural and economic processes typical to the place and era.
We all look at the world through the prism of our own experiences and I think we forget that as modern Americans we belong to the most mobile society in human history. Those of us who desire, can, and do, up and move, so it's easy to assume that others would choose likewise. It's easy to forget that even in more "civilized" regions the rule holds true...most people stay close to wherever they were raised. In my case 2/3 of my high school graduating class lives within a 50 mile radius of my home town. I find that surprising given the general lack of opportunity there.
More specifically, to say a person from Shagaluk, or Huslia or any other bush village "chooses" to live there so as to gain subsistence preference, or to intimate that either their desire to remain close to their home or their fear of moving away constitutes a prejudical choice is patently unfair.
With few exceptions, bush residents live where they were born and feed themselves by the means and methods normal for that place.