U.S. Code » Title 16 » Chapter CHAPTER 51— ALASKA NATIONAL INTEREST LANDS CONSERVATION › Subchapter SUBCHAPTER II— SUBSISTENCE MANAGEMENT AND USE

16 U.S.C. § 3114

Preference for subsistence uses

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 16 CasesGoogle Scholar
Except as otherwise provided in this Act and other Federal laws, the taking on public lands of fish and wildlife for nonwasteful subsistence uses shall be accorded priority over the taking on such lands of fish and wildlife for other purposes. Whenever it is necessary to restrict the taking of populations of fish and wildlife on such lands for subsistence uses in order to protect the continued viability of such populations, or to continue such uses, such priority shall be implemented through appropriate limitations based on the application of the following criteria:(1) customary and direct dependence upon the populations as the mainstay of livelihood;(2) local residency; and(3) the availability of alternative resources.(Pub. L. 96–487, title VIII, § 804, Dec. 2, 1980, 94 Stat. 2423; Pub. L. 105–83, title III, § 316(b)(5), (d), Nov. 14, 1997, 111 Stat. 1593, 1595.)Editorial NotesReferences in Text

This Act, referred to in text, is Pub. L. 96–487, Dec. 2, 1980, 94 Stat. 2371, known as the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act. For complete classification of this Act to the Code, see Short Title note set out under section 3101 of this title and Tables.

Amendments

1997—Pub. L. 105–83, § 316(b)(5), which directed the designation of existing provisions as subsec. (a) and the addition of subsec. (b) reading as follows: “The priority granted by this section is for a reasonable opportunity to take fish and wildlife. For the purposes of this subsection, the term ‘reasonable opportunity’ means an opportunity, consistent with customary and traditional uses (as defined in section 3113(3) of this title), to participate in a subsistence hunt or fishery with a reasonable expectation of success, and does not mean a guarantee that fish and wildlife will be taken.” was repealed by Pub. L. 105–83, § 316(d). See Effective and Termination Dates of 1997 Amendment note below.

Statutory Notes and Related SubsidiariesEffective and Termination Dates of 1997 Amendment

Until laws are adopted in Alaska which provide for definition, preference, and participation specified in sections 3113 to 3115 of this title, amendment by Pub. L. 105–83 was effective only for purpose of determining whether State’s laws provide for such definition, preference, and participation, and such amendment was repealed on Dec. 1, 1998, because such laws had not been adopted, see section 316(d) of Pub. L. 105–83 set out as a note under section 3102 of this title.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 23 cases (3 in the last 5 years), 1982–2025 · leading case: McDowell v. State
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
McDowell v. State (1989) alaska · cites it 4× “ANILCA § 804; 16 U.S.C. § 3114 . [4] ANILCA authorized the state to continue managing fish and game inhabiting Alaska's federal lands and waters if the state established regulations maintaining the definition of and preference for subsistence uses articulated in the federal…”
Kenaitze Indian Tribe v. State of Alaska (1988) ca9 · cites it 3× “” 16 U.S.C. § 3114 (1). Under the state’s approach, this provision would be robbed of all meaning.”
Totemoff v. State (1995) alaska · cites it 2× “16 U.S.C. § 3114 . Section 802 states that it is the purpose of Congress “to provide the opportunity for rural residents engaged in a subsistence way of life to do so.”
Alaska Legislative Council v. Babbitt (1999) cadc · cites it 3× “” See 16 U.S.C. § 3114 (a). The Act defined “subsistence uses” as the “customary and traditional uses .”
Katie John v. Alaska Fish and Wildlife Fed (2013) ca9 “§ 3114 , that the subsistence priority applies "[e]xcept as otherwise provided in this Act and other Federal laws” cures any conflict between §§ 102 and 906, and supports the Secretaries' decision to apply the priority to selected-but-not-yet-conveyed lands. We are not so…”
Ninilchik Traditional Council Jack Kvasnikoff, Jr. v. United States of America Bruce Babbitt (2000) ca9 “” 16 U.S.C. § 3114 (1985). Congress’ aim in passing ANILCA was to ensure a way of life “essential to Native physical, economic, traditional, and cultural existence and to non-Native physical, economic, traditional, and social existence.”
Charles v. State (2010) alaskactapp · cites it 2× “16 U.S.C. § 3114 . The Secretaries of Interior and Agriculture are required to promulgate regulations necessary to implement this priority.”
Alaska Department of Fish and Game v. Federal Subsistence Board (2025) ca9 · cites it 2× “” 16 U.S.C. § 3114 . Congress prioritized the subsistence uses of fish and wildlife 20 STATE OF AK DEP’T OF FISH AND GAME V.”
Burgess v. Alaska Lieutenant Governor Terry Miller (1982) alaska “16 U.S.C.A. §§ 3114 , 3115 (West Supp. 1975-1981).”
United States v. George J. Alexander, United States of America v. Henry W. Peele (1991) ca9 “” 16 U.S.C. § 3114 . The elimination of one particular type of subsistence use — customary trade— does not comport with these statutory criteria; the government has never argued that it does.”
Alaska Legislative Council v. Babbitt (1998) dcd · cites it 2× “See 16 U.S.C. § 3114 (a) (“such priority shall be implemented .”
Totemoff v. State (1993) alaskactapp “” 7 To this end, section 804 of the Act ( 16 U.S.C. § 3114 ) establishes a rural subsistence preference to be applied in the allocation of fish and game resources.”
Show all 23 citing cases →
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.