The past and potential contributions of anthropology to public policy have been described andlor argued for by numerous writers in the past decade, but the primary application and concern have been at the national and international levels. The present paper continues this discussion, but focuses on state‐level policy in Alaska. The work of three Alaskan anthropologists is presented; they have made significant contributions to policy in the areas of law, Native Alaskan subsistence rights and fisheries management. Their work is evaluated in the context of a five‐step model for conducting policy analysis which begins with the assessment of policy‐making environments and ends with an evaluation of policy alternatives. The primary policy concerns of the anthropologists discussed involved the traditional research focus of anthropology, Native Alaskans; however, the tools they employ and background they bring to their work, the specific kinds of policy issues and problems confronted, are not as traditional. One of the anthropologists discussed is atlingit Indian completing doctoral studies at Harvard University, another is a lawyer‐anthropologist, and the third is highly trained in biological and economic theory as well as computer technology. It is argued that the “hyphenated“ anthropologist, at least as exemplified in the cases discussed, is most readily equipped to make policy relevant co