Slope borough pledges funds to help Point Hope defendants

The unusual move of a local government paying for defense lawyers in a criminal trial was authorized by the office of North Slope Borough Mayor Edward Itta in response to a request from the Native village of Point Hope, court records indicate.

In a letter to the village filed in court, the borough says it is putting up the money and raises the possibility more could be sent if needed. Village executive director Lily Tuzroyluke in turn sent the defendants a letter advising they each had $7,000 to orchestrate their defenses and urged them to retain private attorneys, who she said would have more time to handle their cases.

Itta said in an interview Tuesday he was not personally aware of the letter from his office, which bears the signature of an acting mayor, but that he agreed with its contents.

"I do know that I wanted to support them in any way that we could," Itta said. "My purpose is to defend our people in whatever wrong may be applied to them."

The move marks an escalation in what has become a clash of cultures between the state and the Arctic hunters involved in the case. The state argues subsistence users have to follow the same laws everyone else does, while the defendants, their lawyers and, now, regional leaders counter that traditional subsistence hunts should not be hampered.

"It is a direct attack upon subsistence hunting rights in Alaska," said Anchorage defense attorney Jon Buchholdt, who is representing one of the defendants, Aqquilluk Hank. It's "an attempt to criminalize subsistence hunting by applying trophy hunting laws to subsistence hunting and to attack the integrity of Point Hope and the subsistence hunters there, suggesting that by leaving sick caribou on the ground they are somehow guilty of wanton waste. Absolute crap.

"Now, if they want to try to criminalize normal subsistence hunting, well, lots of luck. We're holding the trial in Point Hope. What do you think?"

Buchholdt said a group of youths from Point Hope was responsible for the slaughter that took place, not the group of hunters now facing charges. They were legitimately hunting according to their traditions and got ensnared in an aggressive investigation, he said.

Each defendant, however, has a separate lawyer and is approaching the case differently. Some lawyers are seeking to have the charges dismissed on legal grounds while others are still awaiting discovery materials to figure out how their defense will play out.

The misdemeanor charges accuse the eight men, who were travelling in two groups, of indiscriminately gunning down caribou as they came across them on the Arctic tundra near Point Hope, an Inupiat Eskimo community of 700, over the Fourth of July weekend in 2008.

More than 100 caribou were killed at 25 sites, and Alaska Wildlife Troopers examining the scene along the 40-mile Suicide Trail documented at least 37 that had been wasted, according to court documents. More than that appeared to have been wasted, but because of decomposition and scavenging, troopers were unable to prove the animals were killed by humans, the charges say.

At the time, troopers called it "by far the worst case of blatant waste" they had ever seen.

An ensuing investigation documented some of the men telling a government informant or troopers themselves that the caribou were left on the tundra because of suspected disease, problems transporting them home or, in one case, because they "shot it too much," the charges say.

"The way we hunt was told to us from our four fathers," says a handwritten statement filed in court, the signature on which appears to belong to defendant Chester Koonuk. "What was told to me was if the caribou's are sick to leave it alone don't take nothing home unless you want to get sick or die. But always cut the head off the caribou. I believe cutting the head off the caribou or any animal is being respectful to them."

State officials maintain that regardless of the reason for leaving meat, there is only one set of laws governing hunting and it doesn't allow for waste. And the only difference between subsistence and sport hunting regulations is the amount of game that can be taken, troopers spokeswoman Beth Ipsen said.

"According to state law, all caribou have to be harvested for consumption by humans," Ipsen said. "So basically, you cannot leave anything behind. Even if you believe it to be bad, it still has to be harvested."

Charged with wanton waste, failure to salvage meat, or both are Point Hope residents Lazarus C. Killigvuk, 25; Randy John Oktollik, 26; Roy Oktollik, 19; Brett Oktollik, 21; Koomalook M. Stone, 18; Chester W. Koonuk, 30; Aqquilluk Hank, 30; and Roy A. Miller Jr., 20.

All have pleaded not guilty; a trial date has not yet been set.

Discovery of the caribou was met with a lack of cooperation from village elders, according to troopers, and it took eight months of investigation before charges were filed.

Village officials have disputed that the community stonewalled troopers but also have repeatedly said they don't think any crime has been committed. They launched their own investigation of the matter, which determined there had been no unnecessary waste and only a few caribou that had been left behind because of concerns about disease.

In a letter filed in court this summer, Native Village of Point Hope president Caroline Cannon along with Tuzroyluke explain that concern about ingesting contaminants -- two possible sources cited were lead from Red Dog Mine and nuclear waste at Cape Thompson -- causes local hunters to examine the organs of their kills and to leave meat that appears unhealthy in the field.

"(W)e feel that our hunters acted accordingly and abided by traditional and tribal laws handed down through generations of hunting experience," they wrote. "We support them in continuing this tradition and teach our younger generations the importance of respecting our animals and keeping our people safe of toxins."

Itta said there needs to be a discussion about changing the laws to allow subsistence users their traditions. Asked whether subsistence hunters should follow the law as it is currently written, Itta said yes.

"Of course we have to follow it, but at some point, on the issue of practicality, that is not right what is going on, calling it wanton waste when it's in the best interest of the public to not bring in a sick animal," Itta said. "That's always been a part of our traditional way of hunting."

Meanwhile, the case against the defendants is moving forward with a hearing set for later this month. Assistant Attorney General Andrew Peterson, with the state Office of Special Prosecutions, said trial is currently slated to be held in Point Hope, which became a District Court trial site in 2007. A state effort to keep the trial out of Point Hope was denied, he said.

"I think it's a good decision," Peterson said. "I don't agree with it, but I still have the opportunity to go to Point Hope, try to pick a jury and if we're unsuccessful then I can renew my motion for change of venue."

Find James Halpin online at adn.com/contact/jhalpin or call him at 257-4589.