Mail Bag – Juneau
This letter to the editor in the Juneau Empire caught my eye. It’s a further discussion of resources that we all enjoy being put in corporate hands. I touched on this issue and the inherent conflict of interest of a legislator who not only serves the area affected by this bill, but who sits on the board of the corporation who stands to benefit from it. You can read that article HERE.
Sealaska should be held to the deal made in ’72
Juneau Empire
The Sealaska Corp. lands bill would change the character of Southeast Alaska more than any other land use decision since the Long-Term Timber Sales of the 1950s. Those huge timber sales impacted vast areas of land, but at least most of the logging avoided sites that were heavily used by the public and the land remained in public ownership, hunting and all the other uses we enjoy.
The Sealaska lands bill is different. If the bill is passes, hundreds of the most important and beloved sites on the Tongass would be transferred from a public trust to the hands of a for-profit corporation. Many of the sites are immensely valuable, containing millions of dollars of public investment in roads, docks, second growth thinning, recreation cabins and trails. They are arrayed in a dense pattern across the region and they would have few permanent restrictions to ensure public access or responsible development.
The small businesses that rely on these sites would be displaced. Even more incredible, under the law, Sealaska would have the right to select 1,200 more acres at a future time, without the public’s approval. This could easily mean hundreds of more places in corporate hands.
I believe that Sealaska should be held to the deal they made in 1972 and select their lands from within the established selection boundaries. I do not trust Sealaska’s claim that they will be good stewards of the land because I have seen firsthand how Sealaska has managed their previous selections – clearcut right up to the property lines in all directions, with no concern for wildlife and only very minimal protection for fisheries.
Take a look at the map of the proposed selections and contact Sens. Lisa Murkowski and Mark Begich if you have concerns. This is a land allocation issue of momentous importance to the future of Southeast Alaska.
Barth Hamberg, Sitka, Alaska
**********************************
Senator Mark Begich 202-224-3004
Senator Lisa Murkowski 202-224-6665
Did ya see Linda Menard’s love letter to Kookesh in the Letters to the Editor section of ADN today?
His gangster tactics lead me to believe that Sealaska doesn’t have “conservation” in mind for that land.
Unfortunately Sealaska has not merited unconditional trust when it come to land management.
Wow! Hopefully Alaskans will fight this and fight hard.
Alaska is a pretty big state, but you’d be amazed at how fast a company without a conscience or enforced restrictions can ravage the land. If they are not stopped and held to their deal, they could do irreparable damage.
I remember showing off the local clear-cut on the steep hills above Ketchikan on the way to Lake Harriet Hunt, a popular boating and fishing site outside town. In response to their queries of who was responsible, they were incredulous to hear it was Sealaska, the local Native corporation. “You mean Indians did that?” they’d whisper. Such examples of egregious corporation rapine and mismanagement certainly don’t seem to be fitting of the ethos of caring for the land that we expect from indigenous peoples.
boodog says, “…you’d be amazed at how fast a company without a conscience or enforced restrictions can ravage the land…”
We’ve seen it happen all around family land in the mountains of North Carolina. so sad so sad so sad
Take action, Alaska, while you still can. Our hearts are with you.
If a deal the Anchorage Assembly made with George Sullivan in the 1980′s was deemed to be still valid shouldn’t the same rules apply here? A deal’s a deal right?
I do not think there was a real deal – I think this was back room fraud. See
http://www.henkimaa.com/
I recently got to attend a class with a number of people who were from this area of SE Alaska. I heard NO one supporting this.
The young people were furious that this was about to happen but were having a heck of a time being heard, due to membership in their Corp, etc. They were looking towards the long term and not happy that this area would not be safeguarded.
We need to speak out as Alaskans and let our desire to hold onto these important areas.
Native Corp or not, raping the land is not a good thing!!
I sent Murkowski a letter a few weeks ago. I received an email from her recently thanking me for the letter, but also saying that she supports the bill because they deserve the land.
They’ve already clearcut way too much here in Southeast. Anytime you fly over Southeast you see swaths of clearcut land that Sealaska has stewarded into oblivion.
Bones@8 -I was aiming for irony but probably fell short.
I guess my point was that if the perpatrators of both the Sullivan thing and the one currrently on the table thought they could get away with it they would try.
I’m from a place where politics is pretty bare knuckled but on any given day we don’t see moose or sled dogs, we see guys with nefarious intent and pinky rings.
That being said, there is no better place than Chicago. On all levels.
I’m guessing that everyone who reads can relate.
Except Vermont.
Public lands must NEVER be handed over to a private corporation hell-bent on making a huge profit from that land. The Tongass has seen more than enough timbering and environmentally unfriendly land use. It belongs to all of us. Reseed what is already timbered and leave the rest alone.
In the past month, I’ve signed at least five petitions opposing the Sealaska deal. Sierra Club, National Wildlife Foundation, etc. I’ll check in the morning, if the petitions are still online, I’ll post the links.
Health and peace.
A good site for information–SEACC-Southeast Alaska Conservation Council:
http://seacc.org/issues/land_transfers/sealaska/sealaska-why-were-concerned
It is hard to see where Senator Murkowski and Begich’s sponsership of S 881 ends and Sealaska’s begins. They seem to be holding hands.
This week there were supposed to be rushed meetings held on Prince of Wales at Port Protection, Point Baker, and Edna Bay. An aide to Murkowski was dispatched to Alaska to calm the opposition to the bill there. The hapless staffer did not know March storms make travel difficult. But he most surely knew it was halibut season when a lot of fisherman would be on the water.
The snow and storms this week cancelled his trip and now he is flying to DC without meeting with the oppostion as promised. No doubt he will report there was no opposition.
Sealaska and village corps have logged close to half a million acres in the Tongass so far. And now they want 250 miles of roads built by uncle sam– for free plus 85,000 acres not given to them in ANCSA.
We all need to oppose this bill by faxing Senators Murkowski and Begich today
Marnie said: Wow! Hopefully Alaskans will fight this and fight hard.
The land in the Tongass National Forest is not Alaska’s land, it belongs to ALL Americans, Native and non-native. If the Alaska Congressional Delegation has it will the land in S 881 will belong to a single corporation that hasn’t even done right by its own shareholders, much less the rest of the community. American citizens everywhere would be getting ripped off if this goes through, so contact YOUR Senators and Representatives no matter what state you live in. This is your land that these corporate shills are trying to give away.
I have worked on Prince of Wales Island from one end to the’tother starting in the late 60′s. It has been largely been clear cut logged since the mid 50′s by first Ketchikan Pulp Co. and then Alaska Native Corporations (plural). What the Forest Service hasn’t allowed to be cut the Alaska Native Corporations have. It is a much abused forest that should be allowed to recover. You have to realize the Native Corp.’s operate outside of most regulations, state or federal. AK State Fish and Game does a little bit of oversight on fish streams and that’s about it. The “dollar” rules supreme on their lands and sound forest management is secondary. Good luck trying to stop the juggernaut that is Sealaska as the Congressional delegation has been in their hip pocket for a long time.
I’ll be the odd one out here. First of all, I hate clear cutting as much, or more as the next person. I live, and always have, within a temperate rain forest. I also believe Sealaska should have it’s lands. It’s not being given anything, it is returning lands taken. The hand dealt in the lands settlement law (ANCSA) was prescribed by the Nixon administration, and it set up corporations. The alternative was the disastrous reservation system, and the Alaska Natives did not want that. Let’s be clear…Alaska is a Native Place. Under US law, Alaska was not properly claimed. The US Courts recognized that it had been, in fact, stolen. Thus came the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act. Trouble is, the settlement happened so much after the fact, the newer Federal Government had already claimed 96% of the state’s lands. Ever since, returning that land has been a battle, court orders or no.
Sealaska has over 16,000+ shareholders. It is run by it’s shareholders. The board of directors are shareholders. The Sealaska Heritage Institute provides cultural and educational benefits to shareholders and their descendants of no small value. The Sealaska historical sites and cultural treasure sites are maintained and protected by Sealaska. None of this comes free, and Sealaska must make money to do what their shareholders ask of their corporation. These are considerations that non-Native corporations do not have to deal with. The decisions made in Native Corp. board rooms are not easy, and not based on greed. They live in these communities, and their children will also. They make decisions based on many factors including the need for profitability to continue to provide meaningful dividends to their shareholders, and to continue to protect their ownership of lands their ancestors left them. Native Corporations are acutely aware that they can lose the lands through bankruptcy or creditor taking. It is not an easy place to live, never has been, probably never will be, but 10,000 yrs, & we are still here!
I live in Port Protection, as I have for 3o years, besides this being the place that we depend upon for our subsistence , it is a unique natural resource, and the only like it in the world. this is not a place cherished by the natives that they want because of cultural reasons, this is only being used for profit. Subsidized by all our tax dollars through the roads , bridges and log transfer facilities Sealaska wants with the land. Sealaska was offered other lands with equal timber volume, old growth and infrastructure but not on the sensitive karst resource and they turned it down, The US Forest service also offered them other lands in 2004 in exchange of some of their lands that were not in conflict with other communities ….and they turned it down, They do not tell all the facts , and they spend a lot of money on lobbying to get this disinformation out there. This Karst is a world class resource said to be nationally and internationally significant.. it now belongs to all of us native and so called non native( though we are native to this planet and all came from the same place) Why does this have to be the place that is logged– to lose a valuable natural resource when there have been other options offered. The 10,000 year old human bones were found in part by volunteers from our community, in a place that was to be logged, and only saved from destruction because of our efforts to preserve this resource . what other finds will never be found because this area will be logged
FYI: More info about the Sealaska Lands Bill, and public testimony in Sitka:
http://kcaw.org/modules/local_news/index.php?op=centerBlock&ID=710
thanks for posting this. This bill is tearing SE apart. Forcing this through has re-opened many old wounds and will only create new ones that will take generations to heal. I very much respect Native land claims and regret how our country treated (and still treats) American Indians and Alaska Natives. But this bill and the horrible process its advocates are pursuing is only going to make things worse.
40 years is a long time to wait, but cramming this thing through this spring to meet some DC bureaucrat’s deadline will set Native rights and all of SE Alaska back. Let’s take the time to do this right. There’s too much at stake not to.
I work with these dogs and as far as animal behavior goes, I am a solid believer in nurture and education. I have met Jack Russell Terriers that I wouldn’t go near once again, but have for no reason had a awful knowledge with an American Staffordshire Terrier. If you’re talking about their owners- well, which is a diverse story. Human beings are creatures as nicely, and we have a tendency to every have our unique ideas about “moral concepts”.
CRFlats said:
>>It’s not being given anything, it is returning lands taken.<<
FALSE, blatantly false.
The lands Sealaska wants on Kosciusko Island and Northern Prince Of Wales Island have NEVER belonged to Sealaska. Kosciusko Island, where the largest single "land grab" is, has been proven to have been unoccupied (even by native Alaskans) for at least several thousand years until a logging camp was established at Edna Bay in the 1940s, which has now grown into a full-fledged community.
So the argument that CRFlats and other Sealaska supporters is using is deceptive and wrong. Are we all to go back to the places our ancestors lived several thousand years ago and claim the land is ours by right? Only chaos would result.
Be fair and be accurate CRFlats! Only some small areas of the land in question was ever occupied by Alaksa natives, the majority of it has been unoccupied until the current communities were established there (Edna Bay, Point Baker, and Port Protection). If anyone can rightly claim "homeland status" to most of the contested lands, it is the current residents, not Sealaska Corporation!!!