Wildlife management regimes in north Alaska are examined and found not to accommodate local wildlife use adequately. Often, traditional uses of game are not allowed, or local residents are unable to provide for their needs within the regulatory systems. To provide background for the conflict between traditional use and government management, Chapters 1 and 2 discuss the origin of game laws in western society and the history of the liiupiat people in north Alaska, with particular reference to subsistence hunting patterns. Chapter 3 examines eight federally operated regimes in which wildlife is implicated: international treaties, the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972, the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the National Marine Fisheries Service, the National Park Service, the Bureau of Land Management, and the Minerals Management Service. Chapter 4 examines four state regimes: the Alaska Department of Fish and Game's Division of Boards, Division of Wildlife Conservation, and Division of Subsistence, and Alaska's hunting regulations. Chapter 5 examines three local regimes: the North Slope Borough's Department of Wildlife Management, Science Advisory Committee, and Fish and Game Management Committee. Chapter 6 examines six cooperative management regimes: the Alaska Eskimo Whaling Commission, the Eskimo Walrus Commission, the Yukon-Kuskokwim Delta Goose Management Plan, the Alaska and lnuvialuit Beluga Whale Committee, the lnuvialuit Game CouncilNorth Slope Borough management agreement for polar bears in the southern Beaufort Sea, and cooperative management of caribou. This examination determines which management and regulatory practices are effective in providing for local needs and conserving the resource for sustainable use. In Chapter 7, eight criteria are developed as guidelines for an effective management or regulatory regime: (1) legality, (2) ecological relevance, (3) cultural appropriateness, (4) flexibility and predictability in its response to changing conditions, (5) adaptability to local concerns, (6) local participation in all phases of activity, (7) clearly defined role and limitations, (8) ability to implement its provisions. These criteria are used to analyze the existing regimes to provide an assessment of their effectiveness. Cooperative management regimes are found to be most effective because they achieve the highest degree of local involvement and participation. Federal and state regimes often have the mechanisms to gather local input and to foster local participation, but these mechanisms are not used to their full potential. Effective management of local hunting in north Alaska requires the cooperation of local hunters. Cooperative regimes have shown the effectiveness of this approach; to achieve similar success, federal and state regimes must follow their example.