The subsistence priority was structured around “rural” residency rather than tribal citizenship.
ANILCA’s subsistence framework prioritized “rural” residents for subsistence uses on federal public lands. That choice—rural instead of tribal—created a long-term legitimacy tension: the beneficiaries often overlap with Alaska Native communities, but the rule is not based on being Native.
This single design choice generates recurring conflict: it affects how people interpret fairness, identity, sovereignty, and legal authority—especially when policy outcomes don’t match cultural expectations.