By Carl Johnson

While preparing to head off alone into the bowels of the Death Star to disable the tractor beam holding theMillenium Falcon captive, Obi Wan Kenobi rhetorically asked of Han Solo, “Who is more foolish? The fool, or the fool who follows him?”  I think of such questions sometimes when my legislators act foolishly.

You don’t have to be a lawyer to be a state legislator.  You also shouldn’t have to know all the relevant facts in relation to a proposed law in order to sponsor it.  But somewhere along the way, someone who knows the law and the facts should step in before a law is proposed.  Alaska State Representative Kyle Johansen shows his ignorance of the law and the facts with his sponsorship of HJR31, which calls upon Congress to designate Central Park in Manhattan a wilderness area, and thus prohibit any development absent approval from Congress.

“WTF?” you may rightly ask.  Rep. Johansen claims that the goal of the resolution is to bring to light the ridiculousness of Alaskans being prevented from developing the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.  Apparently Rep. Johansen is not afraid of looking like a total and complete idiot, and also disparaging the intelligence of Alaskans on a national stage, by making this proposal.

The resolution is legally and factually flawed in several ways.

First, only existing federal lands can be set aside as wilderness.  The National Wilderness Preservation System (NWPS) was established by the Wilderness Act of 1964.  Under the Act, only existing federal lands are eligible for selection as wilderness, and five specific factors must be satisfied: (1) the land is under federal ownership and management, (2) the area consists of at least five thousand acres of land, (3) human influence is “substantially unnoticeable,” (4) there are opportunities for solitude and recreation, and (5) the area possesses “ecological, geological, or other features of scientific, educational, scenic, or historical value.” Not surprisingly, Rep. Johansen’s proposed resolution does not address these requirements.  Central Park would not satisfy at a minimum the first three factors: it’s not federal land, it consists of only 843 acres, and the influence of humans is substantially noticeable.

Second, under the Alaska Statehood Act – similar to all states that joined the Union following the original 13 Colonies – the State of Alaska was entitled to select 103,350,000 acres of land not already set aside by the Federal government for other uses.  Alaska has been granted an additional 1.5 million acres of land for university and mental health trust uses.  The lands encompassing what is now the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge were never eligible for State selection and have, since the purchase of Alaska from the Russians in 1867, always been Federal lands.  Thus, creating the Arctic Refuge never took away from Alaska any land that was ever granted to Alaska.

Third, under the Alaska Constitution, the people of Alaska agreed to be bound by the terms of the Alaska Statehood Act that exclude certain lands from use by Alaska.  Specifically, Article 12, Section 12 states: “The State of Alaska and its people forever disclaim all right and title in or to any property belonging to the United States or subject to its disposition, and not granted or confirmed to the State or its political subdivisions, by or under the act admitting Alaska to the Union … The State and its people agree that, unless otherwise provided by Congress, the property, as described in this section, shall remain subject to the absolute disposition of the United States.”  Thus, by insisting that the Federal government allow Alaskans to do what they want with lands retained by the Federal government, Rep. Johansen (and virtually every other elected State official on this issue) has violated his oath of office, which includes a promise to “support and defend … the Constitution of the State of Alaska.”

Fourth, as noted above, Central Park is not federal land – it has always belonged to the people of New York. But, if Rep. Johansen is concerned about protecting it from abuse, it was designated as a National Historic Landmark in 1963.  Plus, simply looking at the park not only in photographs and maps but in person (Rep. Johansen, have you ever been to Central Park? I have …), you can tell it is not under threat of development.  There is only one building in the park, the Metropolitan Museum of Art, and if the park hasn’t been developed by now, it won’t.  One could also say that it is a model for management, as most of the expenses for maintenance of the park are raised by a private non-profit, the Central Park Conservancy, thus alleviating much of that burden from the New York City Department of Parks and Recreation.

Finally, the claimed motivation behind Rep. Johansen’s resolution strongly suggests that the portion of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge where oil companies and State legislators want to develop, what is known as the 1002 Area of the coastal plain, is designated wilderness under the Wilderness Act.  It is not.

One could say that Central Park is already like the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.  An oasis of habitat, surrounded by development (the North Slope region to the immediate west of the Refuge is a vast network of oil and gas infrastructure), it should be left alone to continue providing the valuable habitat it does to the many species that thrive within.  In fact, Rep. Johansen’s stunt is a compelling argument in favor of wilderness designation for the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge’s 1002 Area on the coastal plain.  The biodiversity and importance of the Arctic Refufe far outweighs that provided in the mere 843 acres seen in Central Park.

Oh, and Rep. Johansen, I would fire your research staff.

But the information is still important and very relevent, so we’ll just go with the irony of my raptured online service, and enjoy it anyway. My theory is that the rapture actually did happen, but nobody was eligible. Carry on.

*************************************************

By Rep. Les Gara

You were probably as surprised as I was to wake up and find out there’s a guy in Florida who says the rapture will be tomorrow.  I guess I always thought I’d get more notice before the end of the world.

I owe you a post-session e-news, and given what might happen tomorrow, I don’t think I have any more time to procrastinate on this.  Though it would be nice to get more notice next time if this guy is wrong, like he was in 1994.  I’d like to have my house and chores in order before an apocalypse.  But I guess, so would everyone else.

Some good, some bad occurred this session.  And I need you to write the Governor on a few projects to make sure they survive vetoes – see below – that is, if you care about Anchorage’s quality of life.  Skip the bad if the whole Saturday apocalypse thing is already bumming you out.

The Unspecial Session

Well, that was a mess.  As you may recall, I and others called on those five or six leaders appointed to negotiate the House and Senate’s differences – including the Governor – to sit down and negotiate their way out of session.  The Governor was a problem, so were others who refused to talk or compromise with each other at times when talking was the only way out of session.  In a bicameral system, one side just can’t get their way.  Click here to read our call to get folks talking.

The Coastal Zone Management Debacle.  The Governor refused to read one of the bill compromises the Senate offered on Coastal Zone Management, saying he’d look at it if it passed.  You read that right.  He actually refused, which didn’t help things any – according to Senate sources.  The problem was the Senate needed the Governor’s help to get a few House members to vote for it.  That bill, which the Governor put on the Special Session call, failed by one vote in the House.  The Governor’s help would have been nice.

What’s Coastal Zone Management?  Well, we had it until 2003 – it grants local communities the right to express concerns to state agencies about projects in their districts, and lets them suggest amendments to those projects to protect local interests (like a chemical-emitting dry cleaning plant on an important fishing river).  Governor Murkowski ended this program, and turned it into a shell in 2004.  Coastal legislators have been trying to resurrect it ever since.  It is both pro-development, and good government.  It’s pro-development because it brings all communities and agencies to one table, so permitting goes faster.  And it gives affected residents a voice.

So what happened?   The major oil companies, through the Resource Development Council, wrote a letter supporting the weakest version of this bill – which let the state easily overrule local concerns.  The House passed that version.  The Senate then strengthened it modestly.  The vote in the House to concur was going to be close, so the Senate went to the Governor asking for his help.  He wouldn’t help.  The Resource Development Council wrote a letter opposing the Senate’s modestly stronger version.  According to the Senate President, the Governor wouldn’t even read the proposed compromise, and said he’d only look at it when he was considering vetoes.  Well, that bill failed in the House by one vote.  Which caused rumors of another special session – because the oil companies and Governor overplayed their hands.  With no Coastal Zone Management program, there will be more local lawsuits, and project permitting will take longer.  How’s that for cutting your nose to spite your face.

OK, I can’t make Coastal Zone Management any more interesting than that.  Dry topic, important issue.

The Capital Budget – Another Debacle of “Process”: There is good and bad to say about this construction budget.  Vilifying those who voted either way is too easy, and not right.  I voted against it because I feel in these years of high oil prices we should save more money as we face future years of deficits (we saved $1 billion – but could have saved $2 billion).

This is the biggest capital budget in state history – at $3.2 billion.  It includes an additional $600 million dedicated to programs, but that won’t be spent yet, and is intended to be used later.  Proponents call that money “savings”.  Hmmm.

The Pros. We funded needed energy projects around the state.  That’s important in a resource rich, but energy production-poor state.  And projects around the state from roads to school computers will create jobs.

The Cons. It was too big.  We can’t afford to spend on things that aren’t priorities.  Like $37.5 million for an Anchorage Port expansion when no one has offered any evidence that this project is efficiently sized, and designed.  Since 2003 the cost estimates have gone from $200 million, to $300 million, to $500 million, to $700 million to – when I asked Governor Sheffield, the Port Director in committee this month, $1.1 billion.  When he comes in with an efficiently sized, rational, affordable expansion project, I’ll be on board.  But right now he’s building this port as big as he can get money for.  We can’t afford that kind of spending.

Here are some projects I either voted for in amendments, or pushed for to insert into the capital budget.  They were, in total, modestly priced – and if you multiplied my requests by 40 districts, the budget would have been 80% smaller.  That is, I didn’t try to pork up the budget.  I hope you might write separate, short e-mails to the Governor so these projects make it past a veto.

We Need your Help – Please E-Mail The Governor On Public Access/Parking for Glen Alps: As you may recall, the City started ticketing people who parked on the road to Glen Alps last summer – effectively taking away 50 parking spots for the gateway to dozens of trails and mountain hikes in Chugach State Park.  The Division of Parks has designed a plan to add 50 new legal spaces.  If we don’t add them, then we have a problem.  This lot, used by 130,000 people who want to enjoy Alaska every summer, is now full by 4 pm, and the rest of us can’t drive up there after work for a hike, stroll or bike.

We initially started trying to get funding for this project with Senator French early in session.  When we failed at getting the funding in the Senate budget, we asked Rep. Sharon Cissna (a co-founder of Chugach State Park) and Rep. Lindsey Holmes to join with us in submitting this request to the House Finance Committee Chairs, who agreed to include the funding.  Please write the Governor and his Budget Director to not veto this needed “quality of life” project.  A short two sentence e-mail is as good as a two pager.  Just say whatever you want.  But please support the $715,000 appropriation for this project, and note that it is supported by the Division of Parks.  There are more expensive, more comprehensive public access plans out there.  They need to be debated first.  This one is an emergency project in terms of local public access needs.

Please e-mail Sean.Parnell@alaska.gov and Karen.Rehfeld@alaska.gov – you can use the same note and e-mail both at the same time.

Commemorating MLK Jr’s speech defending American’s right to organize

Other good projects. We have upgraded the energy transmission system along the urban railbelt, and funded renewable energy and hydroelectric projects in the state’s smaller communities.  This will reduce the cost or energy, or at least dull cost increases in the future.  Feasibility wells for geothermal power at Mt. Spurr across from Anchorage is one of these projects.

I also voted for language to make sure the endowment we created for financial aid will go both to the Governor’s merit-based scholarship, and to needs-based aid for those who go to college or seek post secondary vocational education – a good compromise.  And I voted in the operating budget to put money into both.

Home and Business Energy Efficiency Upgrades – Take Advantage of It! The state’s home energy efficiency rebate/upgrade project has produced over 2,500 jobs, and is saving energy across the state.  Call AHFC at 338-6100 or toll-free at 800-478-2432 if you’d like to take advantage of the rebates.  The Governor only put $25,000,000 into this program, which would have basically put it on life support.  It needed $120 million to move faster than it has, so more people can upgrade their homes more quickly.  I voted for an amendment to do that.  I also tried to add $10 million to a revolving loan fund (the state doesn’t lose money on revolving loan funds and we’ve had a good record of protecting the principal, and making a little money) to help businesses upgrade their energy efficiency.  That failed along party lines, though Sen. Bill Wielechowski was able to add $2.5 million to that effort – not what we wanted, but better than where we were.

We also tried to secure needed funding for the University’s Center for Energy and Power, which leverages federal and private funds so Alaska can become a leader in renewable energy research and solutions.  While a mistake kept that out of the House budget, it was added in the Senate.  Renewable energy isn’t just a way to diversify our energy base and level costs, it’s becoming a job producer in this state.

School Funds, Pre-K: There was some disappointment on this front.  While I and my Democratic caucus members sought school funding that would avoid layoffs, and keep pace with inflation, the House rejected that approach, and rejected a Senate bill that would have achieved a similar result.  Instead, the House passed a 1.8% increase that will last only one year, and disappear next year. The House deleted funding for a $2 million pilot pre-K project the state has launched, but I and others, and the Senate, helped restore that funding.  42 other states have voluntary statewide pre-kindergarten programs because students who have that opportunity earn more, end up in jail in smaller numbers, and graduate college and high school in larger numbers.  It’s a big failing in Alaska’s school system – and remains one of the big ideological battles in the legislature.

Fishing Stream Access: My bill to enhance public fishing stream access, and prevent further losses of access on important fishing waters, passed the House.  We hope it will pass the Senate next year.

Foster Care: We added funds to provide substance abuse treatment to families about to lose children into the foster care system.  Currently there are six month and longer waiting lists for these services, and paying a foster family while children are taken away from their parents, who sit on treatment waiting lists, is a waste of money, and damages children.  Sen. Bettye Davis and I filed parallel bills to further improve the foster care system.  One of them will hopefully pass, but they are in Rep. Wes Keller’s Health and Social Services committee.  I think he will agree to let those bills proceed.

OK.  That’s it.   Well, I don’t mean “that’s it”, like there will be an apocalypse tomorrow.  But there might be.  In which case, I guess, that is it.  Though in my experience – I’ll just say those things are hard to predict.

It was a little before Mudflats’ time as a blog, but Anchorage residents may remember the best piece of political theater since… OK, it was the best ever.  It all had to do with a conversation between Assembly members Dan Coffey, and Bill Starr when we all got to eavesdrop on – how shall I put this – their “coarse language,” a scheme to force the Anchorage Police Department to approve a shooting range in Eagle River, and some illegal fund raising activities by a certain Mr. Dan Coffey.

Alaskans fondly refer to this telephone call as “the butt dial.”  We’ve all done it before. Accidentally dialed someone when our phone is in a back pocket or bag. And the person on the other end says, “Hello?” but we never hear it, and then they stop and listen to see if they can tell who it is… and sometimes they get an earful.  In political circles here in Anchorage, “butt dial” is really the only description necessary and people will look at you with a knowing nod. What happened was that Assemblyman Dan Coffey and Assemblyman Bill Starr, both on the Anchorage Assembly, were accepting campaign contributions for some new Assembly candidates, and chatting about the police union that refused to endorse the candidacy of Mr. Starr. But someone had a cell phone in their pocket and must have sat down wrong, because a call was unintentionally placed by our hapless Assemblyman, and a little slice of their real life and personalities was left unknowingly, on an answering machine.

Fortunately the gods of karma and humor got together and made this a good one. The message was left on the answering machine of one of my favorite people – the late Assemblyman Alan Tesche. Now Mr. Tesche shared a common feeling with many of my favorite people – he saw Dan Coffey coming, and couldn’t stand the entire Coffey/Sullivan/Starr cabal in the Assembly who were out to strongarm, and peddle influence, and create policy to serve their own ends at the expense of the public.

Here’s the text of the infamous Butt Dial for those of you who missed it the first time around. You’ll be hearing  some shady fundraising activities by Dan Coffey, who plans to dole out money $250 at a time to keep people in line, “I’m going to be able to [say] hey you didn’t vote right last week. You don’t get your second $250.” You’ll also learn about a certain intimate activity Coffey apparently wants the police union to perform with themselves, and exactly how it should be done. And I quote… “down in the mudflats, and up your a**.”

(Shakes head disapprovingly at Dan Coffey, and Bill Starr)

Well, Mr. Coffey is no longer on the Assembly, but Mr. Starr still is. But being out of office hasn’t stopped Dan Coffey from continuing to engage in his self-serving municipal thuggery at the people’s expense. No worries there. The following is a submission by Mudflatter X, who is in the know and wants to share with us the latest chapter of the skullduggery between Mayor Dan, and ex-Assemblyman Dan.

Turns out, we’re getting “Sullied” by “Coffey.”

***********************************

By Mudflatter ‘X’

Well, he is at it again—telling half truths and being the smug demagogue that he is.

But this time Coffey is shooting himself in the foot because his latest ranting about how bad some of the incumbent Assembly members are, really comes back to haunt him as a former Assemblyman himself.

Coffey issued a letter recently to “Friends and Colleagues” in support of three people who he would like to see replace incumbent Anchorage Assembly members. He hones in on the Title 21 rewrite in particular, saying it is anti-development and will cost the poor developers too much. Title 21 is a collection of land development codes that are meant to implement our comprehensive plan called, Anchorage 2020. Implementing that plan will almost bring Anchorage into the 21st century and will streamline the process for developers.

The Assembly’s Title 21 Committee met nearly every other week for about two years. The meetings were always well-attended by Anchorage’s vocal developers who always got the floor at these meetings, many times over. While they offered real-life solutions to some issues, their clear intent was to avoid doing things differently; neither was there recognition that the Rewrite’s purpose to implement the comprehensive land use plan, Anchorage 2020. In short, their views rarely considered the need to make Anchorage a more livable city, per our legally defensible land use plan. For them, their own bottom line was paramount.

Residents were present too at these committee meetings, but in smaller numbers. And their voice–to ensure the policies of our citizen-derived Anchorage 2020 Plan were heard—was drowned out.

As the Title 21 Rewrite project was nearing completion last summer, the city received a long letter from the Building Owners and Managers Association Anchorage (BOMA) whining about a multitude of problems with the proposed new code. Their letter clearly showed they were mistaken in some of their assumptions. One wonders why they weren’t at the table with the other developers for the past two years.

If Coffey really believes the stuff he’s now spewing about how suddenly awful Title 21 is, then why did he himself vote for the new Title 21 chapters as each came before the Assembly month after month?  After all, he was a member of the Assembly Title 21 Committee for years, and at one point chaired that very committee. He could have imposed whatever he wanted, and what the building community wanted.

As for his sudden assertion that the new Title 21 codes will increase building costs—the city’s reply to the Building Owners and Managers Association Anchorage (BOMA) (August 17, 2010) clearly shows this is not true. To quell BOMA’s complaints over costs, the city included the findings of the Economic Impact Analysis of the Rewrite (2008), completed by a nationally recognized firm, Development Strategies.

In that economic evaluation, it was determined that the new code would, in most scenarios, result in lower site development costs, that larger buildings (on the same parcel) would be enabled under the codes, and the impacts on property values would be neutral. Unfortunately, the study didn’t evaluate the one thing that Coffey should be interested in—how much more valuable and desirable a well-designed city will be to businesses and the public, years from now. But Coffey and many developers can’t think that far ahead.

Coffey left the Assembly last year and immediately received a contract from the city to work on the uncompleted Title 21. His six-month contract was worth more than he made annually as an Assemblyman. Apparently that contract has been renewed for another six months and it is rumored that he wants to contract for another costly economic study because he doesn’t like the results of the first one. Some think it is a conflict of interest for him to get this contract, but apparently the city’s Legal Department didn’t look too deeply before saying it was ‘OK.’

Another mistaken impression included in Coffey’s letter is how successful the Mayor has been at reducing taxes and shrinking government. Only those without vision or who do not care what happens to our children would say that. How does it benefit a city and residents when budget cuts (lacking an economic necessity) leave the school district so short of funds they tried to tell us we couldn’t afford summer school classes, or even after school activities for Junior High students. How does a city benefit when the Parks Department can’t offer residents simple recreational opportunities? There are statistics that show a healthy, active population costs their city less to operate than the reverse. Gym fees are high, but we all should be able to enjoy our parks, recreational centers, pools and trails.

This city is not in an economic bind. We have a surplus of almost $20 million. But the Mayor and Assembly’s actions have created one. They chose not to tax to the legal limit allowed or even close to it. That created a false economic dilemma and it is doing irreparable harm to our city.  Anchorage needs all the help it can get to attract businesses and keep an educated populace. Who benefits here? A few of the richest residents who complained to Coffey and the Mayor about high property taxes for houses that THEY bought—knowing full well what the taxes would be.

I sure hope Coffey’s “Friends and Colleagues” are smarter than he is. For the rest of us, well, we know Anchorage won’t be a city where our children will want to live, until we get and keep people on the Assembly who have our vision and aren’t afraid to seek it.

The city’s Planning Department replied to the BOMA letter; in straight forward and logical language the city stated that BOMA’s concerns had been debated and often compromised during prior drafts. In addition, the city provided strong reasoning why Title 21 needed to be updated (for consistency and how the streamlined codes would benefit developers).

Bottom line? The Coffey/Sullivan dynamic duo is at it again. Personal gain and ambition trumps the will of the citizens, and top down bureaucratic subterfuge is about to squash a well thought out public process that was years in the making, and designed for the long-term livability of a great city.

My initial response of “OMYGOD, are you’re kidding me?” was replaced, moments later, by the thought (repeated many times across the years) that I live in what is politically and culturally a very, very strange place indeed, a sort of alternate universe to rational thought and behavior. It’s a place that in two years has given us the Sarah Palin phenomenon and now Joe Miller, a guy who single-handedly (if you believe his spiel) is gonna change how things are done in Alaska and the whole U.S. of A. If Joe gets his way, there will be no more Social Security or Medicare benefits – maybe not even unemployment compensation, which he’s decided is not “constitutionally authorized.” And he’s going to convince the federal government to let go of its lands in Alaska (and around the U.S.) – more on this last point a bit later.

You have to wonder about the people who voted for Joe. What were they thinking? Or, more to the point, were they thinking?

At least some of the people who voted for Miller – and I’d bet most of ‘em – have to be the same folks who worshipped Ted Stevens, in large part for all the many billions of dollars Mr. Pork Barrel funneled to Alaska during his long reign in the Senate.

Don’t these people understand that Joe is determined to end Congress’s largesse toward Alaska? Don’t they realize he expects Alaska to – GULP! – support itself? Sure, it sounds great to say “Do away with Social Security. Do away with Medicare and unemployment benefits.” But it ain’t gonna seem so great if or when the payments and benefits end.

I guess that’s the great thing about voting for a guy like Joe Miller. You can take a strong anti-government stand – even if it’s in your own worst interest – and not have to worry about it, because Joe Miller won’t be able to do a tiny fraction of what he says he wants to accomplish. Even if the Republicans take over the Senate, Joe’s views will be extreme. And he’ll be a newbie, with little or no clout. That’s another reason the vote for him doesn’t make sense. Sure, voting for him made a great statement. But what’s he really going to accomplish? And look at the seniority that Alaska lost, in a place – the U.S. Senate – where seniority matters a whole bunch, like it or not.

To be honest, I’d grown weary of and hugely disappointed in Sen. Lisa, who once upon a time was a moderate in her words and actions. But as she moved up the Senate’s chain of command, she became ever-more conservative and contrarian, while solidifying her position in what has become the Party of No. I take a little guilty pleasure in relishing the fact that Lisa moved way to the right and even that wasn’t good enough to get herself re-elected. For Joe Miller to call Lisa Murkowski a “liberal” is to show how extreme his own views are. If this is where the Republican party has moved, it is dangerously close to making itself irrelevant to the large majority of Americans. Alaskans I’m not so sure about.

I’ll betcha there are lots of bigger-name Democrats who are now kicking themselves that they didn’t run for the Senate this year. What an opportunity they missed. Though McAdams still has to be considered a long shot, at least he now has a shot, something the Democratic party’s national leadership certainly realizes.

This is going to be one heck of a race between two people who until the past week or so were largely unknowns, even in Alaska. In the space of a few days, Miller gained national renown, or at least notoriety. McAdams, meanwhile, remains a largely unfamiliar face, an underdog. But this fact remains: The people who chose Miller over Murkowski constitute a small percentage of Alaska’s voters. You would think that the primary results would be a jolting sort of wake-up call to anyone left of the extreme far right. Still, this being Alaska, who knows?

I think that Joe Miller’s primary victory could ultimately be a good thing, though not for the same reasons his supporters believe. But I also think that it could be a good thing if the Republican party were to choose Sarah Palin as its next presidential candidate. Some friends shudder when I say that, simply for the fact that she might actually win. I can’t imagine that, but I also couldn’t imagine George W. Bush getting re-elected in 2004. So yeah, it’s a strange, strange world we inhabit.

Now, some final words on Joe Miller and Denali National Park. First, it doesn’t at all surprise me that Joe wants Alaska to take over the state’s federally owned lands, including Denali, as reported in the Alaska Dispatch earlier this week. My guess is that a lot of Alaskans would like to see that. What caught my attention is the disconnect in Miller’s thinking. On the one hand, Joe says, “If there’s a significant resource in that park [Denali] that we could get in a responsible way – and the state decides it’s appropriate to extract it – let’s create jobs from it.” On the other hand, he says he doesn’t favor anything that despoils the wilderness.

Say what? How can you not despoil wilderness by extracting resources from it? Answer: there is absolutely no way. Joe can’t have it both ways, but he seems to want just that. I’m reminded of TV shows and movies about the American West from years ago, when Indians accused whites of speaking with a forked tongue. Or I suppose you could say it appears Joe is talking out of both sides of his mouth. It appears he’s adapting to politics very well, thank you.

Later in the Dispatch piece, writer Joshua Saul reports that Miller “believes that Alaska must end federal paternalism and move toward state control of all lands and encourage aggressive resource development.” Again I ask, how does that jive with keeping wilderness intact and unspoiled?

Joe’s stance on Denali and other public lands is bound to win him favor with many Alaskans, particularly those who are staunchly pro-development and state’s rights advocates. But I wonder how many residents would actually want to see Denali become a resource-extraction site. Alaska’s wildlands and wildlife are among our state’s greatest treasures in their condition of wildness, not simply as resources to be tamed, extracted, or otherwise consumed. At some level Joe Miller seems to understand that. But there’s that disconnect, one that seems to be contagious.

Setting aside his personal philosophy and contradictory statements, there is also this to consider: when asked how he might go about moving Alaska’s lands from federal to state control, Joe suggests building a strong Congressional coalition that would move the country toward his so-called “constitutional model,” in which states’ powers would override the federal government in nearly all situations.

Message to Joe and his followers: It ain’t gonna happen. Nor is the federal government suddenly going to bequeath its lands to states because of a bankruptcy crisis.

On one thing I agree with Joe Miller: the federal government needs to get its spending under control. One way it might do this is to truly trim back Congressional pork. If Joe got elected and could help with that, more power to him. Though once the money stopped flowing to Alaska, I think he’d have a revolt on his hands. The other thing the government could do is end – or severely curtail – its corporate subsidies. And it could trim its obscenely large defense and military budget.

As for opening up Denali National Park’s wildlands to resource extraction, if given the chance: say it ain’t so, Joe. You wouldn’t really do that – would you?

***********************

By Mudflatter Legal Eagle

In a recent interview with The Alaska Dispatch, Joe Miller stated that he will fight for state ownership of Alaska lands that are presently owned by the federal government. His plan is to develop these lands, including for natural resource extraction. Putting aside the entirely ludicrous notion of developing millions of acres of pristine wilderness, including Denali National Park, the question becomes whether alleged Yale Law graduate Joe Miller has ever read the Alaska Constitution.  While it’s true that Yale Law is pass/fail, and while we can assume that Mr. Miller was grateful for that during his constitutional law classes, one would assume that he at least had given our founding document a quick skim.

Any Alaskan will tell you that Alaska is different. And any Alaskan lawyer will tell you that the Alaskan Constitution is different. From the right to privacy enshrined within it, to the “pursuit of happiness” in the text of the document, the Alaska Constitution is brilliantly drafted and clearly unique. In at least one crucial respect, however, the Alaska Constitution is the same as the Constitution of almost every state in the union.

Under Article 12, Section 12 of the Alaska Constitution, the State of Alaska expressly disclaims all right and title to ANY property belonging to the United States:

§ 12. Disclaimer and Agreement
The State of Alaska and its people forever disclaim all right and title in or to any property belonging to the United States or subject to its disposition, and not granted or confirmed to the State or its political subdivisions, by or under the act admitting Alaska to the Union. The State and its people further disclaim all right or title in or to any property, including fishing rights, the right or title to which may be held by or for any Indian, Eskimo, or Aleut, or community thereof, as that right or title is defined in the act of admission. The State and its people agree that, unless otherwise provided by Congress, the property, as described in this section, shall remain subject to the absolute disposition of the United States. They further agree that no taxes will be imposed upon any such property, until otherwise provided by the Congress. This tax exemption shall not apply to property held by individuals in fee without restrictions on alienation.

AK Const. Art. 12, Section 12 (emphasis added).

This disclaimer of any ownership interest in federal lands in this state was a condition of statehood, as further evidenced by the Alaska Statehood Act:

As a compact with the United States, said State and its people do agree and declare that they forever disclaim all right and title to any lands or other property not granted or confirmed to the State or its political subdivisions by or under the authority of this Act, the right or title to which is held by the United States or is subject to disposition by the United States, and to any lands or other property, (including fishing rights), the right or title to which may be held by any Indians, Eskimos, or Aleuts (hereinafter called natives) or is held by the United States in trust for said natives; that all such lands or other property, belonging to the United States or which may belong to said natives, shall be and remain under the absolute jurisdiction and control of the United States until disposed of under its authority, except to such extent as the Congress has prescribed or may hereafter prescribe, and except when held by individual natives in fee without restrictions on alienation: Provided, That nothing contained in this act shall recognize, deny, enlarge, impair, or otherwise affect any claim against the United States, and any such claim shall be governed by the laws of the United States applicable thereto; and nothing in this Act is intended or shall be construed as a finding, interpretation, or construction by the Congress that any law applicable thereto authorizes, establishes, recognizes, or confirms the validity or invalidity of any such claim, and the determination of the applicability or effect of any law to any such claim shall be unaffected by anything in this Act: And provided further, That no taxes shall be imposed by said State upon any lands or other property now owned or hereafter acquired by the United States or which, as herein above set forth, may belong to said natives, except to such extent as the Congress has prescribed or may hereafter prescribe, and except when held by individual natives in fee without restrictions on alienation.

Alaska Statehood Act, Section 4 (emphasis added).

Strange. It’s almost as if Joe Miller is making these claims without any legal basis. 

The text of both of these documents is crystal clear. There is no wiggle room, and no room for interpretation. Alaska has NO right to any federal land located within its borders, and it never will. Could it be that Joe Miller is a liar? An idiot? A politician with no shame or remorse about making promises that he has absolutely no intention of keeping? (Is any of this sounding familiar?)

How exactly does Joe Miller intend to accomplish this miraculous feat? If elected to a position in the United States Senate, will he convene a constitutional convention in Alaska to attempt to remove Section 12 of Article 12 from the Alaska Constitution? Will he then sue the federal government to overturn Section 4 of the Statehood Act?

This raises further questions for me: specifically, how will these actions align with the oath that he would swear as a U.S. Senator?

I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God.

What about the oath that he took in order to gain entry into the Alaska Bar?

I do affirm:

I will support the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of Alaska;

I will adhere to the Rules of Professional Conduct in my dealings with clients, judicial officers, attorneys, and all other persons;

I will maintain the respect due to courts of justice and judicial officers;

I will not counsel or maintain any proceedings that I believe are taken in bad faith or any defense that I do not believe is honestly debatable under the law of the land;

I will be truthful and honorable in the causes entrusted to me, and will never seek to mislead the judge or jury by an artifice or false statement of fact or law;

I will maintain the confidences and preserve inviolate the secrets of my client, and will not accept compensation in connection with my client’s business except from my client or with my client’s knowledge or approval;

I will be candid, fair, and courteous before the court and with other attorneys, and will advance no fact prejudicial to the honor or reputation of a party or witness, unless I am required to do so in order to obtain justice for my client;

I will uphold the honor and maintain the dignity of the profession, and will strive to improve both the law and the administration of justice.

Alaska Bar Rule 5, Section 3 (emphasis added).

How exactly would Joe Miller be upholding his oath as an attorney licensed to practice law in the state of Alaska, or as a United States Senator if he sought to wrest control of federal lands in Alaska away from the federal government? It’s simple: he wouldn’t. It would be in violation of his duties both as an attorney and as a United States Senator to advocate for this course of action. Perhaps things are different in Kansas, but I suspect that Joe Miller hasn’t read that constitution either.

The simple fact is that Joe Miller is making headlines for what amounts to an elaborate game of bullshit. I could do an elaborate legal analysis on why exactly these claims are absurd, but let’s face it: you don’t need a J.D. to understand the above. Although, perhaps members of the campaign’s messaging team can take up a collection to buy Mr. Miller a Black’s Law Dictionary so he can learn what big words like ‘disclaimer’ mean.

It’s your move, Alaska: time to call Joe Miller’s bluff.

I have lived in two rather large metropolitan areas: the Twin Cities, with its two million people, and Los Angeles, with, well, way too many people.  I chose to move to Anchorage eleven years ago not because I was looking for urban, but because I was looking for wild with just the right amount of urban.  I have grown in my knowledge over time that I had made the right decision, enjoying many years hiking, biking and Nordic skiing on Anchorage trails, enjoying fishing for salmon in its streams, and enjoying picking berries in its forests and alpine slopes.  Most of all, over those years, I have enjoyed photographing in the wild places of Anchorage, in its greenbelts, watersheds, valleys and coastal areas.

I have lived here only eleven years, but I get it.  I get why Anchorage is a special place.  I get what makes it stand out against Seattle, Portland, Minneapolis, Chicago, Los Angeles, New York … all the cities where I have been.  Anchorage has actual, real wild habitat within the confines of the actual city, and most of that is accessible by the public.  You can see bear, moose, red fox, coyote, even wolves within the confines of the city.  You can fish for salmon only a five minute walk from downtown.  You can enjoy the call of a loon in the evening if you live near a lake.  You can be on a mountainside picking blueberries after only a twenty minute drive or so.

I get it.  But our mayor, Dan Sullivan, sure as hell does not.

About two years ago, I made contact with the Great Land Trust to put my photography to use in helping them to secure wild places so they could be set aside for conservation purposes.  Simply put, the Trust works with private landowners who have property of some greater value to habitat, public use, or some other aspect that makes the property worth while in preserving for public use or conservation.  The Trust raises money to purchase the land, then either maintains ownership of the land and makes it available for public or conservation benefit, or donates the land to the state or local government, with the caveat that the property is preserved in a conservation trust, often in the form of a conservation easement.  The Trust will also negotiate with private landowners to obtain a conservation easement over the owner’s land, allowing access to public lands that are otherwise not easily reachable. Sometimes that involves purchasing private land outright so that existing parks and preserves, like Chugach State Park and the Anchorage Coastal Wildlife Refuge, have more public access.

Last year, I met up with someone from the Trust to go photograph the Campbell Creek estuary in the Anchorage Coastal Wildlife Refuge.  Not that the estuary itself is not already protected to some degree, but the purpose of the visit was to highlight the estuary to assist in fundraising for purchasing private land that would provide public access to the coastal refuge in that area and ensure greater protection for the estuary by limiting development.  You see, there is no legal public access to the coastal refuge on the west side of Seward Highway from all the way down by Potter Marsh to all the way up to Kincaid Park.  Why not?  Because half of the land is all privately owned, and the other half is blocked by an easement for the Alaska Railroad.  The Railroad, a State-owned entity, considers it trespassing to cross the tracks to access the Refuge, and I have been threatened by Alaska Railroad security before for, God forbid, trying to access public land so I could photograph it.

So I took these photos of the Campbell Creek estuary in hopes that the Trust would be able to meet its goal to purchase the land.  I saw the value of having the access, of making more of the coastal refuge accessible to the public.  There is no reason that a handful of property owners should be able to block access.  I had not heard of how the Trust was progressing in its effort to secure funding.  Until today.
I felt my stomach sink this afternoon when I saw the headline on the Anchorage Daily News link that Shannyn Moore posted on her Facebook page: “Mayor turns down deal for park at Campbell Lake.”  I read the article, and became increasingly furious as I read.  I will not reiterate all of the idiocy that spewed from the mayor’s lips and translated to a few statements in the article, but the most egregious were his assertions that there is not enough money to manage the parks as it is, and the land would be better used to plant thirty or forty homes anyway.  But the worst, the absolute worst, is his claim that we have too much parkland already.  Among the too many parks that the mayor identified is the Lake George Preserve, which can only be accessed by float plane.  Yep, I bet a lot of people can freely get out there.

I have to wonder if our mayor even uses the parks.  Has he ever been to Jewel Lake on a hot day?  How many families enjoy just that one park over a weekend?  I will bet you anything, because I have seen that park on busy days, that it is a lot more than thirty families.  The whole point of having parks is that they are joined by the many – by whoever wants to – not just the few.  They provide recreation, solace, peace and enjoyment to anyone, regardless of their station in life.  They add VALUE to a city that a subdivision never could.  When you look at national listings for livable cities, do you see a category for “Developable Land”?  Or, do you see a category that highlights park and recreational space in the city?  I think we know the answer to that question.  Anchorage has not been named an All-America City four times because of the amount of its developable land.

And, I am sorry, but it is a lame, pathetic, hollow and convenient excuse to say the city cannot afford to maintain another park.  The main point of this property purchase was to provide public access to the coastal refuge.  You know what that takes?  A trail.  I have maintained hiking trails before.  It is not that challenging, and certainly not rocket science.  Given this mayor’s financial decisions to date, the fact that there is not money in the budget to maintain more parks, or maintain the existing ones better, is not for lack of money.  It is for lack of respecting the value that those parks and open spaces provide to our city.

Instead, the city is more than willing to throw all sorts of tax breaks for developers to tear up the land and install ugly, gaudy, rapacious strip malls or other monstrosities, with little or no control over aesthetics.  If our mayor wants sprawl, he can move to the Midwest.  I would prefer if he moved to some small suburb that really is a city wannabe, and he can sprawl and develop to his heart’s content.  I just don’t want him to do that with our city.  Providing $2.7 million to set aside this land along the Anchorage Coastal Wildlife Refuge would provide more long-term vale to far more people than any other expenditure of $2.7 million for private development could.  And that is really the problem here, our mayor has no interest in the public good; his interests lie more in how much money someone can make on selling land to build thirty homes.

And let us not forget that it was a private landowner who made the decision to partner with the Great Land Trust to set aside this land for the public good.  If we are so respectful of the rights of landowners to make decisions on the disposition of their land, why does our mayor not value that decision when it benefits the entire community?

I share images from Alaska with people from all over the world, whether on my website, my blog or my Facebook fan site.  Quite often, the most feedback I receive are from images I have captured right here in the Anchorage bowl.  People are often so amazed that so much beauty in the land can exist in an urban environment.  They share their envy when I show them images of wildlife I have captured within Anchorage’s many suitable habitat areas.  They tell me how lucky I am.

There is a reason that the Anchorage Convention and Visitor’s Bureau chose “Big Wild Life” for its marketing slogan.  Anchorage is not great for its restaurants, its museums, its live music, its theatre, or all the other things you can find in other cities.  That is because you can find them in other cities!  I cannot think of another city this size in the United States where you can do all of the things you can do, see all of the wildlife you can see, in the outdoors, that you can do in Anchorage.

The mayor has simply reached a new low in his total and complete disregard for the values of green and wild spaces, wildlife and habitat in this city.  If he does not see value in greater public access to designated park and refuge lands, if he does not see value in protecting and celebrating our wild and green spaces, if he does not see the value of our wildlife (see earlier comments this summer on brown bears by our mayor), if he does not see value in promoting what makes Anchorage great, then he is the mayor of the wrong city.  I urge everyone to call, write, email, fax, or even make a personal visit to City Hall and tell the mayor’s office to reverse his position and allow the funding to go through for the purchase of the land to provide the access to the coastal refuge and provide even greater assurances that the Campbell Creek estuary will be protected and enjoyed.

This was a great Twitter exchange between Sarah Palin and Linda Kellen Biegel. Sarah and family are going to do a little mountain climbing on the highest pieak in North America, it seems.

Not sure where Palin actually meant because “Sweettooth” does not come up on any searches of Denali, and climbers in the know shrug their shoulders.  Surely she can’t mean Sweet Tooth Spire? That’s not its official name, but its basically an unclimbable sheer rock face.

And the better known and officially named Sugartooth is… how shall I say… a bit of a challenge, and takes more than one day, unless of course you just fly there.

~The ridge of Sugartooth, Denali

I’ll be interested to see pictures of the “climb.” My guess from the buzz in Talkeetna is that after hair and makeup, they’ll be flying in for a photo shoot they’ll use in the hubristically named adventure series “Sarah Palin’s Alaska” for Discovery Communications.

Sweettooth = name of ridge you got wrong while trying to sound like a mountain woman.

Ah, yes.  The $250,000-an-episode fresh air is indeed “good 4 the soul.”

******************************

Like local wildlife manager Rick Sinnott, I am confounded by Mayor Dan Sullivan’s refusal to close Rover’s Run in Bicentennial Park, given what we know about the potential for bear-human conflicts and serious human injury along the trail at this time of year. The mayor seems to fall into the camp of those who believe Anchorage is human turf, period, and we’re not going to give an inch to those damn bears that insist on invading our town. His argument that Anchorage is “a city first . . . It is first and foremost an urban environment” is a naïve and disturbing oversimplification of our community. In fact substantial parts of Anchorage are more wild than urban. Within the Anchorage Bowl are many places where people go to escape the more developed sections of town or in hopes of seeing wildlife, from Potter Marsh and Westchester Lagoon to Kincaid and Bicentennial Parks and large stretches of the city’s coastline. As manifested by both wildlands and wildlife, such wildness is one of the primary attributes that distinguishes Anchorage from – and I would argue, lifts it above – other large cities.

For many of us residents, one of Anchorage’s great appeals is the opportunity to view, study and/or celebrate the local wildlife, from bears and moose to belugas, sandhill cranes, bald eagles, foxes, lynx, loons, and all manner of songbirds, shorebirds, and waterfowl. And what about the fishing for trout and salmon in Anchorage’s lakes and streams? I’m hardly alone in preferring to go for quiet walks amid the songs of birds rather than frequent the city’s noisy, frenzied malls or big-box-store centers.

The mayor may not like it, but across the years local residents and their civic leaders have chosen to leave substantial parts of Anchorage wild. And some of those wild areas touch greater wilderness. As Sinnott and others have repeatedly pointed out, even if we tried, we couldn’t keep bears and moose out of the city, because of natural corridors that connect Anchorage to adjacent Chugach State Park (and other areas).

To insist, against all evidence, that Anchorage is simply an urbanized place meant for people alone is to be disingenuous or in denial. And for the mayor to leave a trail open to the public against the best advice of local wildlife managers – and despite the recent history of bear-human conflicts along Rover’s Run – is irresponsible.

The mayor has practically invited trouble. And trouble has already arrived.

For him to suggest that “It’s up to people who use these areas to use good judgment” is equally irresponsible and dangerous, if only for the fact that some number of visitors to Anchorage explore Bicentennial Park each summer. A closed trail sends a much stronger message than a cautionary sign. Even with warning signs, how are tourists supposed to know exactly how dangerous a trail might be, without knowing its history? Heck, how many residents are well versed in the dangers the trail presents in summer?

So what if some people choose to ignore a closure? That’s their choice. And they then have no one to blame, other than themselves, if they get into trouble. If the intent is to prevent, or minimize, bear-human conflicts and harm to people (and bears), our leaders should take every precaution they can – and be the best possible role models. Sullivan is failing on both counts.

The mayor’s comparisons to lake drownings or mountain falls are specious and self-serving. A better comparison would be to beach closures in more southerly coastal areas, when great white sharks are known to be in the area. Or to use a local example, the trail to Flattop has occasionally been closed in winter when avalanche conditions are high. Does this stop everyone from using the trail? No. Is it a reasonable thing to do? Chugach State Park staff clearly thinks so.

The Division of State Parks also seasonally closes trails in Chugach and Denali State Parks because of the dangers that salmon-fishing bears present. Why not the city? Mayor Sullivan argues that Anchorage’s urban parks and trails were set aside as recreational areas, not bear sanctuaries, but that is just as true for Chugach’s Albert Loop, near the Eagle River Visitor Center, and Troublesome Creek Trail in Denali. Again, his arguments fail the common-sense test.

One of my concerns is that Mayor Sullivan’s blasé – or is it macho? – attitude toward Rover’s Run and its bears will increase public demand for more dead bears, which to me would be a disheartening thing. I can only hope that isn’t one of his motives.

It certainly doesn’t help that the mayor suggests that hikers carry guns when hiking or biking Rover’s Run, commenting that he’d go armed there with “a big one.” Such an attitude suggests aggression, not restraint or avoidance, and can only lead to increased dangers for both bears and humans.

• • •

Rover’s Run, Part 2
Whatever his personal and political motivations and desires, Mayor Sullivan’s comments about Rover’s Run and, more generally, bear-human relations in Anchorage can only serve to incite Anchorage’s “kill the bears” crowd. I absolutely agree with Rick Sinnott that Sullivan’s reasoning “seems like an ideological argument, ‘We’re not going to let the bears push us around.’ ” In that light, I’d like to respond to some of Brian Sweeney’s comments in his recent Alaska Voices posting, They’re Grizzlies, Not Teddy Bears, written in the wake of the latest Rover’s Run mauling.

For someone who constantly demands that other “Voices” provide data and/or sources to back up their arguments, Sweeney sure seems to love making sweeping generalizations that are merely his opinion.

For instance, he says with great authority, “It is a joke to think people can predict or anticipate the behavior of a wild animal.” Well, in many circumstances a person who’s learned about a particular species can indeed anticipate, and in some cases predict, how a wild animal will likely respond. One example: cycle rapidly down a narrow trail with poor visibility and suddenly surprise a female brown bear with cubs and there’s an excellent chance that bear will attack. Another example: corner a cow moose with newborn calves and there’s an excellent chance that cow moose will charge you. On the other hand, if you steer clear of those moose, they may watch your passage but will almost certainly leave you alone. I could go on and on, but you get the point (and maybe even Sweeney does.)

Sweeney also insists that “Granola chompers believe all animals are peace loving.” As one of those chompers he loves to denigrate, and also friends to many others, I can vouch that’s a bunch of crap. Where did he come up with that information?

Another unsubstantiated accusation/generalization: “Environmentalists and their ‘science’ seem to lead them to a thought process where harming any animal is wrong.” Where did that come from? In fact many environmentalists hunt or fish or both. Many more eat meat and clearly understand that their diets cause harm to animals. It is however true that some of us believe humans do way too much unnecessary harm to other animals and that our species is too often cruel (to our own kind and other life forms), but that’s another story (and one I’ve commented on elsewhere, if you want to check my Alaska Voices archive).

Sweeney also says, “It is time to get real. We should not encourage bears and moose to enter our neighborhoods and streets. And if one attacks it should be immediately taken down.” I’m not sure who exactly is encouraging bears and moose to enter Anchorage – except, perhaps, for the people who leave out garbage, dog food, etc. They’re the problem, not the moose or bears, and I applaud efforts to penalize residents who attract bears and moose with food. As for an attacking animal to be “immediately taken down”: I’m happy Sweeney isn’t running the city. Again, in way too many instances people provoke the attack and the animals are behaving defensively. I’m among those who don’t wish animals to die for our own reckless, stupid, or taunting behaviors.

I do agree with Sweeney on one point: “When a human is the prey a line has to be drawn.” But there’s no evidence that any bear (or other wild animal) coming into Anchorage has treated a human as prey. This summer’s bear attack along Rover’s Run and the others two summers ago occurred because bears felt threatened and they attacked in self defense, not because they were killing people for food. As Sinnott said after this latest attack, “It sounds like it was a classic brown bear defensive attack.”

Sadly, it was an attack that might have been prevented, if our mayor had closed Rover’s Run as city officials have done the past two summers and as Sinnott has repeatedly implored them to do this year.

Anchorage Mayor Dan Sullivan is an idiot.

I know this is not news to you, but sometimes it feels good to say something even though it doesn’t need to be said. He’s done lots of idiotic things, but here’s the latest.

There’s been a bear mauling on the Rover’s Run trail in Far North Bicentennial Park.  A bicycle commuter was attacked and injured.  It’s a horrible thing that seems to happen too frequently.   Salmon are in the stream, mother grizzlies are protective of new cubs, and this… is Alaska. Bears are a fact of life, and love them or hate them, they are worthy of deep respect. If a bear is out to get you, you will probably lose. So the best thing when there are irritated bears on a trail is to close it so nobody else gets hurt, or worse.  We did it last year, and the year before.  Makes sense, right?

Only if you’re not Mayor Dan Sullivan. He’ll go so far as to say that you shouldn’t actually go on the trail, but closing it? Nah.

Fish and Game biologist Rick Sinnott wants the city to close the trail as it has when brown bears have been in the area during the last two years. Mayor Sullivan refuses. He’s agreed to warning signs, but doesn’t want to close the trail in part because there’s no budget for enforcement and in part because he argues that Far North is an urban park, where people should be able to go for recreation.

See, those bears just don’t get it.  We should be able to use those trails.  This is an “urban park” after all.  Who do those ursine spoil sports think they are, anyway?  They’re interfering with our libertarian recreating ways. And can you imagine the budget it would take to pound a sign in to the ground that says “CLOSED?”  Outrageous.

But wait, there’s more…

Asked about the routine practice of national and state park officials in closing trails when bear danger is high, the mayor said Wednesday that those are national and state parks with different purposes than city parks.

I’m sure that after the mayor takes the appropriate paperwork explaining the difference in intended function of national vs. state vs. city parks, and sits down with the bears to explain, that they’ll do the right thing and relocate.

Let’s imagine the scene in a moment of Mudflats Theatre…

Dan and the Bear – A Play in One (Very Short) Act

(As the scene opens we see a trail in the woods. A man in a suit and tie walks in from stage right, slightly hunched and shuffling through a small pile of papers.  He reads as he walks.)

Man: (muttering)…. Where is that reference?  I just saw it….

(He looks up from the papers to see a large brown bear who has wandered out on the trail. He smiles and sits on a large fallen tree by the side of the path.)

Man: Hey there!  I was hoping I’d see you. (He pats the log next to him) Have a seat.

Bear: Grrrrrr….. (he looks suspiciously at the man, and ambles over to the log)

Man: I heard about the mauling the other day, and to be honest, I think we have a problem.  You see, this here is what we call an “urban park.”  It’s a city park.  It isn’t like a national park or a state park, and if you’ll look here, (indicates paper) you’ll see that I’ve highlighted where it says that the purpose

(Bear eats man)

(Curtain)

~~Sarah Red-Laird - Logger's Daughter

By Sarah Red-Laird

As I was growing up in Alaska’s Tongass National Forest, the timber industry was booming. Around where we lived, on Prince of Wales Island, it seemed like there was an endless supply of trees and money, and people were happy.

I remember loggers from the community coming to Hollis School’s bake sales and dropping one hundred and fifty bucks on Cathy’s pineapple upside down cake.

I also have heard stories from my friends and former Fo’c'sel Bar tenders about sweeping up hundred dollar bills from below the bar stools back then. They would just fall out of the stuffed pockets and wallets of the men, who were too lit to really care or notice.

Being a logger’s daughter in the 1980s on POW (as we call Prince of Wales Island) was fun. Hollis was a great community, and those were good times. My step-mom always says, “Southeast Alaska is a very small town.”

The small town, tight-knit community feeling is a unique aspect to life in the largest National Forest in America. Tensions have been growing, however, since the end of the logging boom. And they’re getting worse because of legislation our congressional delegation wants to pass.

The bills in question, S881 and HR 2099, will give a private corporation the right to take some of the most valuable forest and recreation lands from the Tongass, including sites filled with majestic trees that are hundreds of years old. The bills do that by changing land selection rules that were set long ago, in the 1971 Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA).

The settlement act gave Native-owned corporations, including Sealaska, the right to select acreage from the Tongass National Forest for private ownership. Sealaska has already received 80% of the land it’s entitled to get. As a profit-making business, it naturally selected prime stands of old-growth forest for logging. Sealaska then proceeded to clearcut those lands at an unsustainable rate. It has only about two years of profitable timber supply left.

Sealaska has identified the remaining 20% of land it would take if it has to follow existing rules set by the 1971 land settlement act.

There is no reason Sealaska cannot get that last 20% of its land, and get it fairly quickly. (Congress passed a law in 2004 to speed up the remaining land transfers for Native corporations.) Alaska Natives should have rights to land to manage for the welfare of their people.

For the remainder of their selections, however, Sealaska does not want to stick to the existing rules. It wants to pick more valuable old-growth forest land and recreation sites from locations all throughout the Tongass. We call that “cherry-picking the good stuff.” Their attempt to do this, with help from political leaders who are supposed to represent all of us, is already causing more unnecessary conflict.

Southeast is moving on from the “good ol’ days” of the timber boom. Being such a resilient community, the residents have been able to see the forest as useful in different ways. Restoration projects, fishing and hunting guiding opportunities, small timber operations, mom and pop saw mills, and eco-tours are bringing a sustainable income to Southeast.

Intact forests also support abundant fish and wildlife, which in turn sustain unique and amazing recreation opportunities for locals and visitors, and also support traditional ways of life that are so important to local communities. Allowing Sealaska to have at it, doing more clearcutting and slapping up “Private Property” signs, would be a tragedy.

This harmful legislation has come during a time of collaboration in Southeast Alaska, and is threatening years of work among diverse stakeholders to agree on a new vision for managing the Tongass, one that doesn’t rely on logging irreplaceable old-growth forest.

With groups such as the Tongass Futures Roundtable and watershed councils scattered around Southeast, many communities were beginning to feel empowered by the opportunity for a say in the future of their forest. This collaborative process includes members from Native Alaskan communities and the Sealaska Corp.

Sealaska’s legislation throws this collaborative process, and all the progress that has been made, right out the window. Instead, we are seeing closed-door meetings between Sealaska, conservation organizations, and other groups.

Recent wheeling and dealing steered land selections from North Prince of Wales and Edna Bay area to their Hollis area neighbors, which broke the hearts and the patience of Hollis residents.

Southeast Alaska has been going through a turbulent transition these last couple of decades. Unable to rely primarily on timber extraction money, communities and their people have had to re-invent themselves and their livelihoods. This is OK, as life is dynamic and gives us multiple chances to change course to a more positive direction.

I have faith that Southeast residents value old growth and healthy second growth forests for the subsistence, recreation, and business opportunities, and will not allow this legislation to pass. If it does, it will only be the beginning of a long, painful, and divisive process for Southeast Alaska.

Sarah Red-Laird
will graduate this spring with a degree from the University of Montana’s College of Forestry and Conservation in Resource Conservation. She’s a former resident of Hollis, Ketchikan, and Skagway, Alaska. Her father is a former logger who now runs a guiding business based in the Tongass National Forest.

For continuing coverage of this issue, follow SitNews HERE