Washington (AFP) - When John Sturgeon's hovercraft broke down as he drove it in a remote river in Alaska in 2007, he had no idea his ordeal would end up in the US Supreme Court.
Still, the moose hunter finds himself at the center of a legal conundrum that not only has traveled thousands of miles to Washington but has also flummoxed the judges of the nation's highest court.
While Sturgeon was trying to fix his hovercraft on a shoal in the Nation River, he was approached by uniformed federal agents. They told him hovercraft were banned in all national parks because they were deemed too noisy.
Sturgeon, whose hovercraft was duly registered, was stunned.
He argued that even though the river was in public land, it was not up to the federal government, but rather the state of Alaska, to decide if it was legal to use a hovercraft on the waterway.
Sturgeon got a lawyer and showed he was willing to go the distance to prove he was right, filing appeal after appeal.
Little by little, his determination won him admirers and support in this state dominated by Republicans.
Funds were raised to finance his fight. The state's two senators endorsed his cause. In a crowning achievement, the state of Alaska itself endorsed it.
By way of context, in many states in America's great west, much land is owned by the federal government. That is a source of conflict with locals, who want to use the available resources rather than protect them.
- Discontent in Oregon -
By pure coincidence, the case went before the Supreme Court Wednesday as armed protesters in Oregon are occupying a nature reserve to denounce what they say is a thicket of federal regulations for local ranchers and farmers.
In Alaska, the proportion of land under federal control is a whopping 61 percent. From the late 1950s through the 1970s, the government was under pressure to give back part of it -- either to native Americans, to the state of Alaska or to private investors.
Some of this territory has nonetheless remained inside national parks in a complicated patchwork and with a hybrid status. A case like Sturgeon's was just waiting to emerge at some point or another.
During Wednesday's session in the Supreme Court, the moose hunter's arguments grabbed the attention of several conservative judges, who are always wary of encroaching federal powers.
Wild, immense Alaska -- four times the size of California -- has peculiarities that cannot be ignored, Sturgeon's lawyers said.
"Alaska's waters are used in ways that are different from the lower 48," said Ruth Botstein, the assistant attorney general for Alaska, using the term Alaskans employ to refer to the rest of the US, except for Hawaii.
"In the Yukon Flats National Wildlife Refuge, there are three villages of less than one hundred people that are hundreds of miles from any road. And this is common in Alaska," explained Botstein, who filed an amicus curiae brief with the court in support of Sturgeon.
Legal experts said the court may choose to side with Alaska and place new limits on federal land management.
http://news.yahoo.com/alaska-different-moose-hunter-tells-us-high-court-225426902.html
Still, the moose hunter finds himself at the center of a legal conundrum that not only has traveled thousands of miles to Washington but has also flummoxed the judges of the nation's highest court.
While Sturgeon was trying to fix his hovercraft on a shoal in the Nation River, he was approached by uniformed federal agents. They told him hovercraft were banned in all national parks because they were deemed too noisy.
Sturgeon, whose hovercraft was duly registered, was stunned.
He argued that even though the river was in public land, it was not up to the federal government, but rather the state of Alaska, to decide if it was legal to use a hovercraft on the waterway.
Sturgeon got a lawyer and showed he was willing to go the distance to prove he was right, filing appeal after appeal.
Little by little, his determination won him admirers and support in this state dominated by Republicans.
Funds were raised to finance his fight. The state's two senators endorsed his cause. In a crowning achievement, the state of Alaska itself endorsed it.
By way of context, in many states in America's great west, much land is owned by the federal government. That is a source of conflict with locals, who want to use the available resources rather than protect them.
- Discontent in Oregon -
By pure coincidence, the case went before the Supreme Court Wednesday as armed protesters in Oregon are occupying a nature reserve to denounce what they say is a thicket of federal regulations for local ranchers and farmers.
In Alaska, the proportion of land under federal control is a whopping 61 percent. From the late 1950s through the 1970s, the government was under pressure to give back part of it -- either to native Americans, to the state of Alaska or to private investors.
Some of this territory has nonetheless remained inside national parks in a complicated patchwork and with a hybrid status. A case like Sturgeon's was just waiting to emerge at some point or another.
During Wednesday's session in the Supreme Court, the moose hunter's arguments grabbed the attention of several conservative judges, who are always wary of encroaching federal powers.
Wild, immense Alaska -- four times the size of California -- has peculiarities that cannot be ignored, Sturgeon's lawyers said.
"Alaska's waters are used in ways that are different from the lower 48," said Ruth Botstein, the assistant attorney general for Alaska, using the term Alaskans employ to refer to the rest of the US, except for Hawaii.
"In the Yukon Flats National Wildlife Refuge, there are three villages of less than one hundred people that are hundreds of miles from any road. And this is common in Alaska," explained Botstein, who filed an amicus curiae brief with the court in support of Sturgeon.
Legal experts said the court may choose to side with Alaska and place new limits on federal land management.
http://news.yahoo.com/alaska-different-moose-hunter-tells-us-high-court-225426902.html
Last edited:
