Native hunting rights argued in Pt. Hope caribou trials

On the subzero shores of the frozen Chukchi Sea, along Alaska's northwest Arctic coast, the month of February has brought an unusual occurrence to the village of Point Hope: A judge has drifted in to hold court, ready to measure the actions of three Inupiat caribou hunters.

State prosecutors claim the men unjustifiably wasted meat from two caribou during a July 2008 village hunt; the defendants, refusing to take plea deals, maintain they did nothing wrong. The case has pitted defense of traditional hunting practices against the universal enforcement of state hunting laws.

On Tuesday, seated beneath a bingo scoreboard in the village's community center, Alaska Superior Court Judge Richard Erlich refereed the proceedings as the defendants, their attorneys, witnesses and onlookers took seats among the cluster of folding tables throughout the room. A day earlier, Erlich introduced himself to the town via VHF radio, reminding potential jurors they were no longer needed. The state's recent decision to reduce the charges made the need for a jury unnecessary, leaving the judge to be the sole decider of facts and fate.

{em_slideshow 18}

Of the eight men originally charged with wanton waste or failing to salvage caribou meat, Aqquilluk Hank, Chester Koonuk and Roy Miller Jr. are the only three to take their cases to trial. Recently, the state downgraded charges against the men from misdemeanor crimes to civil violations.

In the months leading up to this week's trials, the alleged Point Hope caribou slaughter grabbed statewide attention, in part because of initial accusations by Alaska State Troopers claiming 100 or more caribou had been recklessly killed in 2008, their carcasses left to rot. In the end, the state backed off those claims and deals were cut with some of the hunters, raising questions about just how many caribou were killed and who among the hundreds of villagers hunting that summer was responsible for the crimes troopers went to great lengths to document.

By March 2009, the state had charged eight men from two hunting parties in connection with the investigation. One was a group of five young hunters, including one man who took troopers to some of the scenes in question. The other party was a group of three hunters. Troopers have no specific kill sites and no carcasses to connect to the three men. With the smaller group, the only evidence the state has are statements from the hunters themselves.

Throughout the trials Tuesday, family members of some of the hunters and others who took plea deals recently, including Koomalook Stone, strolled into the community center to watch the proceedings. Stone was 17 and a high school senior when troopers came calling about the alleged slaughter. He later escorted investigators as they retraced his hunt and gathered evidence. Like other members of his hunting party who cut deals with the state, Stone will pay a fine and perform community service. His father is glad the ordeal is behind his son, but hopes it won't be forgotten.

"At least they'll learn something from what they did and never do it again, hopefully," Billy Stone Sr. said.

A fight over Native rights

Hank, whose hunting party is on trial this week and who admitted to killing two caribou and leaving them behind, argues aboriginal sovereignty over traditional hunts for fish and game is an inalienable right to Alaska Natives. In a newly filed motion for acquittal, Hank's lawyer, Jon Buchholdt, suggests state hunting regulations are irrational, arbitrary and hostile with respect to Native customs.

This case "is not really about state or federal law, it is about something far more fundamental," Buchholdt wrote in support of Hank's acquittal. "It is about the right to life itself."