My name is Kurt Whitehead and I am a licensed hunting guide in Alaska and have been in the big game guiding industry for the last 16 years. I live in Klawock with my fiancee Trina Nation and have been guiding Black Bear hunters on Prince of Wales Island for the last six years.
Sealaska Corp. has allowed us to guide on their properties on Prince of Wales and we wanted to report that it has been a very positive experience.
The bays that we hunted with our boat-based operation had clearcuts in the vicinity and our guided hunters harvested their bears either in harvest areas or very close to them. We saw numerous bear and deer as they were using the harvested areas to feed almost exclusively on the abundant new growth.
A clear cut supports an amazing number of animals and later, with proper thinning, provides cover for those same animals that have moved on to feed in new young growth forests.
Living in Klawock we have seen first hand how Sealaska provides jobs to the whole logging industry and how numerous local businesses benefit. We have experienced firsthand how they have provided access to their lands to locals and guides and how their goals are to provide economic stability to its shareholders and non-shareholders like myself.
Timber is a renewable resource and if managed properly will provide many jobs and hunting opportunities for all of us. Sealaska has been managing its resources properly and we want to thank them for the opportunity to make a living on their lands.
Kurt Whitehead
Trina Nation
Klawock
Comments (33)
Add commenttheir goals are to provide economic stability to its shareholder
66 cents a day in dividends, never averaging $2 in it's entire 40 history isn't economic stability.
I see what he means, $665 thousand dollars per month for 50 managers and board members, now there's economic stability.
I think the management of Sealaska believes that when it comes to stability for shareholders they think two can live cheaper than one. No one ever told them that it applies only to a cow and a crow.
Comments off topic
Dominic Soolbato (sealaskashareholdersunderground),
Once again you have left a comment that has nothing to do with the letter. Why do you spend so much time calculating how much people make. How much do you make? Why are you so angry at Sealaska? Were you not hugged as a child? You say you are Native but I have never read a Native value come from you and your hatred language. Why don't you run for the board for gosh sakes - than we can stop reading your hatred filled comments.
Economic stability?
It's simple business Joff. How is 66 cents a day in dividends economic stability? How has the clear cuts at Hoonah and Kake benefited shareholders, Joff?
Sealaska wrote off 122 million dollars in losses within 3 years of the destruction of the forest at the largest Tlingit village in Alaska, hey that's nothing to be mad about is it, Joff? Ignoring 188 Hoonah residents that requested Sealaska leave their forest alone.
Sealaska CEO makes more in two days then shareholders with 100 shares have received in 14 years of dividends including ANCSA, again that's nothing is it Joff?
665 thousand dollars a month in management fees for 50 people is nothing to shareholders that as much as 70% live below the poverty line, is it Joff?
Hoonah and Kake clear cuts, Kookesh ethics violation in Craig, then he lies about it to shareholders, hundreds of square miles cut out of the Tongass, almost every scientific organization in the world opposing Sealaska, Management cutting up a goose feather pillow to mock our Eagle feather ceremony for the video camera (why do it at all, except to con the public) Millions spent so Al Kookesh can save face.Your right Joff there is nothing to be angry about is there?
Nepotism, favoritism, lying to elders, warnings from Sealaska's ex CEO to leave the Tongass out of future balance sheets. The list goes on.
But your right I'm the only guy that doesn't trust Sealaska aren't I Joff?
Kake doesn't think Sealaska has managed its resources well
Nor does Hoonah, and they are the Natives in the village who Sealaska hasn't been able to buy off. Sealaska has clearcut most of Kupreanof Island without replanting it. When the clearcut it, they left the low value timber on the ground, not worth the trouble to process it or ship to Asia.
Sealaska doesn't have to follow the stream buffers that US Forest Service loggers do since it's private land. Now that Sealaska wants their land bill, they have seen the light and started to replant their clearcuts.
Here is a factoid many people may not be aware of - where is Sealaska Timber marketing office located? One guess - it's not Alaska, rather in Camas, WA. Take a look at their ship schedule - all of their product is going to Asia regardless of what propaganda they are spreading in Alaska and Washington, DC.
Take a look at the Los Angeles Times article from April 2010, where Albert Kookesh (Chairman of the Sealaska Board) own daughter, Jaeleen Kookesh Araujo (Sealaska General Counsel) admits that Sealaska has done a poor job of managing its resources: "It's true that in the past we harvested at very large levels, and that was not sustainable," said Jaeleen Araujo, Sealaska's vice president and general counsel.
Of course they aren't harvesting at very large levels, North America isn't building new houses with the collapse of the housing market, so there is no demand. Judge Sealaska on their past behavior, not their promises. They promise their shareholders every year better returns on their investments, more accountability, and the shareholders are disappointed year after year.
Yes JimmyJ he rants endlessly
Yes JimmyJ he rants endlessly about his bottom line; if he were running the corporation he would give away all the profits and bankrupt the corporation leaving nothing for the future generations. He has no value in the language, culture, educational, and career development opportunities the corporation offers; he just cares about big fat dividends that he thinks he is entitled to.
Perhaps change is needed, but such change will not come with negative attacks and relentless badgering of his own people. Take all the net value, salaries, and assets and divide them between 20,000 shareholders and the dividend would be a one time shot in the arm-nothing more nothing less.
He fails to comprehend the value other shareholders see in the benefits and services they receive through the corporation; he just wants big dividends handed to him on a platter-Sealaska "owes" him something and hes entitled to whatever he feels he should get-no matter how subjective and immeasurable his wants are, they are "whats right" and and everyone else is wrong.
He thinks ANCSA corporations were created to GIVE and provide an entire lifestyle regardless of the dependency and lack of self sufficiency such a policy would create.
But reasonable, logical people know their corporations provide OPPORTUNITY whereupon individuals must take initiative, compete, and strive for growth and independence; not expect to just have something "Handed" to them.
Yes, and back to the
Yes, and back to the germaneness of the article. Finally, an empirical anecdote; not emotional attacks based on unprecedented speculation "What if?".
FACT that Sealaska allows access to current lands held; voiding disinformation attempts by Wayen Regelin and others who argue Sealaska is attempting to deny access to the public.
FACT Sealaska's logging activity does not destroy or "rape" the land negatively impacting the environment by causing hardship on the flora and fauna indigenous to the area.
FACT Native and Non-Native can all benefit and utilize the land.
Sealaska doesn't need my help to go bankrupt
Ravenshouse your out of your mind.
Deny that Sealaska destroyed the forest around Hoonah and Kake.
Deny Sealaska ignored 188 Hoonah residents that petitioned Sealaska not to destroy their forest.
Deny that Kookesh told shareholders his ethics violation was because there were no Natives or Democrats on the ethics committee.
Deny that when called a liar here at the Empire by Mr.Turner, head of the ethics committee and offered two public hearings, Kookesh refused.
Deny Sealaska's admission to the LA Times that they logged at un sustainable rate in spite of Sealaska's propaganda to shareholders that it harvested at sustainable rates.
Deny that Sealaska's Operations and M.Young Permanent fund contributed only 2.5 million dollars in dividends this year while management took 8 million in compensation.
Deny that Sealaska's management is demanding additional land not as a Corporation but as the Sealaska Tribe.
Deny that Sealaska deleted the news from they're website when it posted the fact that 53 United States legislators signed a letter against the Sealaska bill in an effort to slant the news pertaining to the bill.
Deny that Sealaska's ex CEO advised us that the Tongass shouldn't be part of a balance sheet of any Corporation.
Deny Byron Mallott's statement that Sealaska's management didn't have the experience in business that lead to the destruction at Hoonah and Kake.
Deny that Chris McNeil Sealaska's CEO has pocketed 2.6 million dollars in the past four years on a salary of 350 thousand a year, totaling over a million dollars in bonuses as he reported the low dividends are due to another down year.
Deny that 50 of Sealaska's managers and board members have authorized themselves 30 million dollars in compensation just in the past four year.
Deny that Sealaska's management has refused to provide shareholders with the total amount paid to management over the past four decades, and refuses to provide shareholders with the amounts paid to board members.
The Battle for the Tongass has moved.......
The battlefield to end the destruction of your and my old growth trees is now located in Washington DC.
Focus your opposition to the Sealaska bill there. Write your letters to DC newspapers, post the Indian produced video "Hoonah's Legacy" where ever a story appears in regards to the Sealaska bill.
Other members of other Native Corporations and people in general are appalled by the greed of this Corporation and the amount of destruction it has caused to date.
Ravenhouse has never answered the simple question of has he or she ever tried to walk across a clear cut, where high grading a forest can be seen and experienced. Taking the best and leave the rest, on the ground.
Yes I saw the propaganda
Yes I saw the propaganda piece you speak of where all those comments you quote are miscontextualized to create an illusion to disinform the public. I saw the video where they filmed other Native Village lands to make it appear as if it was ALL Sealaksa land that was clear cut. However, even if it was, the land was given to Native organizations to log; to say its "immoral" or illegal when it was used in its intended fashion is emotional and absurd.
So a former CEO said "Dont use the Tongass as a balance sheet"? SO WHAT! Where in the bylaws or anywhere do you see one CEO's word is gospel to be obeyed perpetuity; again- WHAT IS YOUR POINT? He said that so what does that imply? QUALIFY your statement-Dont just throw out some one-line argument and expect it to stand on its own. Remember every CEO has a different view and a vision and so do the board of directors. Clinging to one sentence taken out of context because it is convenient for your argument does not in and of itself make it TRUE or RIGHT.
What do Albert's accusations outside of his role as a board member have anything to do with our lands bill? What does anything you really say have to do with anything at all?
Your contempt and hatred for Albert sounds personal; nothing to really do with the success and benefits of Sealaska or its management.
Even if Albert was unethical, he is but one board member of 13 and because you feel he is unethical, that is a reason to deny finalizing Sealaska's lands bill? What about Joe Nelson? Jodi Mitchell? Sydney Edenshaw? Tate London? Jacqueline Pata? Barbara Cadiente-Nelson? They have no ethics charges against them-what EXACTLY is your point in regards to Albert's ethics charges and what does it have to do with Sealaska getting its final 85,000 acres of land? So because one board member has a controversial image, throw out the baby with the bathwater?
Ok so you say shareholders get .66 cents a day. Now What about the nearly half million in scholarships given out last year? Factor that into your equation. How many shareholders received money from internships and employment opportunities? Again, your only dividing dividends; not other benefits that give shareholders revenues. Are you going to deny scholarships and educational growth does not benefit our people? ONLY A FOOL would say that.
Again, most of your grumbling comes from executive salaries and what you think you should get in a dividend; nothing more nothing less.
Your pathetic arguments are too easily deconstructed and they have no logical merit or constructive value-just one emotional personal attack after another and you trample over the values and appreciation other shareholders have in your quest for your big handout. Its all a bunch of emotional viewpoints with nothing objective about them; purely subjective
Instead of just throwing random attacks together in a jumbled heap, organize your argument to qualify your reasoning and come to some logical conclusion about what your actually trying to say.
Thick............
Your the only person that I have ever seen that defends the cut at Hoonah and Kake, Sealaska didn't sue for libel the Hoonah Indian Association because the video is true and any action on managements part would draw attention to the tape. That is a fraction of the destruction Sealaska is responsible for. The point is, the definition of insanity is making the same mistake over and over and expecting a different result. That is why our ex CEO is telling us to STOP!
How many lies do you have to discover before you get the picture.
"What do Albert's accusations outside of his role as a board member have anything to do with our lands bill? What does anything you really say have to do with anything at all?"
That is the goofiest statement you have come up with yet.
Kookesh is the chairman of the board of directors. It is because of Kookesh in Craig that brought shareholders and the worlds attention to the degree of greed displayed in the video's "Hoonah's Legacy" and "Fate of The Tongass."
Joe Nelson refuses to answer the question of the totals grossed by Sealaska or the amounts paid for management in total because he feels I will use the amounts against management. I don't know what the amounts are, why would he come to the conclusion that I would use it against them?
Jodi Mitchell brags in a open microphone about Clarence Jackson being her uncle, oblivious to the criticism of four decades of Nepotism by Sealaska's management.
A whole half million in scholarships, is that suppose to cloth and feed our elders or our poor today right now according to today's needs of our people?
Am I being emotional when I quote figures and amounts that you nor anyone from Sealaska can refute?
Two hundred thousand acres of the Tongass clear cut and a shareholder with 100 shares have never averaged two dollars a day in dividends, what economic impact will an additional eighty five thousand acres mean in meeting shareholders needs?
Sealaska's management looks at the mountain's and bare land as cr*ppy land because they can't convert it to quick cash for bonuses for it's executives.
Sealaska needs to suck it up and find another way.
The Empire can't fix today......
If BS was brass Raven you would be the USC marching band........bottom line is that you don't deny the things I have listed.
Lets put it this way, would you buy Sealaska stock Raven? Would you be for a resolution that allows me to sell my stock for any reason I saw fit, like grown up people can in the United States?
Or is being a Sealaska shareholder a life sentence to a link of mismanagement and greed?
Its a waste of time.........
What did does Kookesh have to do with the land transfer? Boy have you got your head in the sand. To be continued..............testing
Where are your numbers to support your view..........
You don't have the any idea what your defending Raven. What does a scholarship mean to an elder without the basics of food and shelter or any shareholder for that matter? I'm talking about today, right now. What have you got to offer shareholders other than lip service and the promise of more clear cuts.
Sealaska has never averaged even $2 per day in dividends and you claim I'm greedy, and only dividend motivated.
Two hundred thousand acres clear cut and shareholders haven't hit the three dollar a day mark and you want everyone to jump on the bandwagon for another eighty five thousand acres.
People aren't buying it Rave, that's why people aren't saluting when management ran it up the flag pole.
I hope the Empire sorts out my first response and posts it in the morning. I look forward to having you clarify some of the missing numbers associated with the Sealaska bill.
A glitch at the Empire.....
We'll have it sorted out in the morning so and I can post the original response to your comment i wrote this afternoon.
Underground, I really dont
Underground,
I really dont have an issue with you wanting change; the problem I have is your method of approach. Blame game and personal attacks are not the way to go about it.
Ill admit its tough to get an independent on the board, but almost half the current members are independents. US shareholders have to organize and mobilize just like any other constituency and vote as a block if you want to change the current leadership. Yes, its tough, but its just as tough to do in the American body politic.
Your approach does not help to organize shareholders. I would agree with you change would be good for our corporation and our people. But we need to go about that change in a positive way.
You can start by agreeing that Sealaska DOES do positive things and there are other services and programs that it offers that benefits not only the Native community but the Southeast region. You must realize and accept that other shareholders see value in Sealaska aside from a dividend.
Certain directors have had there time at the helm to be sure; but they have also done a lot of hard work for our people; give them that much credit. Again, yes, I agree with you that change is not a bad thing.
But if you sincerely want change, develop a more positive approach and offer productive solutions. Whether you like them or not, show a tiny bit of respect and appreciation but focus on your goal of change and electing leaders you feel would guide our corporation in a new direction.
So if you feel certain board members should go-and I am asking in a most sincere manner-who should we elect in their place? The last annual meeting showed some promising candidates -who do you feel we should vote for and why? Again, I ask you in a genuine way.
Gunalcheesh
This is the problem Raven.........
There is no other way to communicate with fellow shareholders Raven. Management allowed only 100 words per year if you want to communicate with other shareholders and you had to run for the board to get it in print. It has gone on for 40 years, the one way flow of information.
Anyone that has followed the Empire knows that I proclaimed that I found no pleasure in challenging a man I idolized most of my life in Byron Mallott. I still find no pleasure in opposing him.
But as a social worker in Anchorage I got a first hand view of the needs of our people. We need so much in basic needs to live. Do we need another canoe or totem? Some of our people are homeless living on the street and they're shareholders in a Corporation that has made billions. It's morally wrong.
I've been forced to employ the same strategy as Fredrick Douglass when asked how he gained freedom for his people, his answer was, AGITATE.
Facebook and Outreach
You have your facebook set-up and you have other people who are seeking change as well that you are networked with. There are no limitations to the output of communications on Facebook. Gather contact information from people, such as e-mails and addresses and mail materials out that communicate messages to shareholders. Have other shareholders who value change and work together and unify your resources. Again, it will take time and energy but if you want change it will take sacrifices and dedication.
I think that larger dividends are not the answer; we would just be throwing money at the problem and it wouldnt go away.
Good points Raven......
But we shouldn't have to go outside the Sealaska website Raven. You and I pay for it. Sealaska's Management maintains the parental treatment of it's shareholders by refusing to deal with shareholders in real time. They dictate what is important, that leaves shareholders on the short end everytime.
It isolates both management and shareholder. It has interfered with our Corporations ability to live and grow.
We as a people will be judged on how we treated our needy, and we have plenty of them. That is one of the reasons I'm against this bill, it means more of the same.
We have some house cleaning to do before we return to business as usual.
Why alienate our Non Native neighbors and brothers at this time with a bill that leaves them in the same powerless position shareholders are in? It drives a wedge between the races when we should be finding ways to cut people in, not cut them out.
It is the wrong bill, for the wrong reason, at the wrong time.
I wouldn't let that
I wouldn't let that discourage you as an obstacle. Again, those policies could be revised with fresh leadership that is more accountable to their constituents. We want more transparency, communication, and accessibility to our leadership. Those are the types of candidates we are looking for- so who do you feel would represent those interests and work towards better shareholder relations policies? Again, this is an earnest question; I am curios to know what independents you feel would incorporate new paradigms bring a new vision to the leadership of Sealaska?
Another good question....
Ravenhouse I don't think you would make a bad candidate. Your intelligent and informed, and a good fighter, I like that.
Seadog 55 knows more than anyone I ever met about the details of the workings of all the Corporations and is a headhunter without equal. I would want dog as a partner in a consultant business. Brain trust would be a good description.
Ray Austin is smart and a humble guy that relates to our people on a level of Flo Kenney.
Michael Beasley and his brother Richard are action guys that could get things done.
I supported Barbara Candiente Nelson and feel that though out numbered, is aware of the need for change.
James Skannes said many things I agree with.
Ross Soboleff is to much like what we already have.
Will Micklin sacrificed his own campaign to promote Barbara Nelson's, that means something.
What we really need is to rid ourselves of Kookesh, Worl and Hallingstad.
Maybe I wouldn't make a "bad"
Maybe I wouldn't make a "bad" candidate; but maybe not a GOOD one either. I have no difficulty admitting I am not yet ready for that type of leadership role. Perhaps a decade or so more and I MIGHT have enough experience to begin thinking about such responsibilities.
I agree about Micklin; he has a humble, friendly, but intelligent and confident individual. He seems like a practical person. Part of the problem is that you dont get the proxy's BEFORE you actually hear the candidates; we should hear campaign speeches, THEN get the proxys. Im fairly confident I will be voting for him next year.
ANCSA election reform.........
That's it in a nut shell. Sealaska offers a $25 bounty for returned proxies the day the proxies arrive. Weeks and as much as a month before campaign statements are sent.
Sealaska forbids candidates to campaign prior to the arrival of the proxy ballot.
$25 is more than shareholders receive in a months dividend. With a postage free envelop enclosed with the proxy ballot most are in the return mail long before the campaign statements are sent.
Combine that with discretionary voting, and the Corporation paying endorsed candidates expenses plus Sealaska has a budget of one hundred and twenty five thousand dollars over and above the three hundred and thirty thousand dollars ear marked for the cost of the bounty. Sealaska's management for all intent and purpose secures the eight million dollars in management salaries and bonuses for the top fifty board members and managers within days of the proxies arriving.
Independent candidates are limited to 200 words in they're proxy statement. It was only 100 words up until two years ago.
I think AKromper said it best, and I've posted many times at other Native Corporations shareholder pages on "facebook."
Plenty of outsiders completely understand the workings of how your Native voting process works, including the default votes defer to the boards discretion when left unused.
It's a pretty good scam your board of directors puts in place to keep itself in power. All the trappings of a democracy but all the unbalanced power of a theocracy (Divine Power).
You vote, but it means nothing you aren't in charge, you are out voted on anything that threatens the board of directors power, and you can change next to nothing. There are to many apathetic members which works in the boards of directors favor. AND GUESS WHAT IT WAS INTENTIONAL!
There were some people JUST smart enough to rig the system for themselves. It will take a MONUMENTAL effort to undo it.
One vote,one voice, no proxy votes. the choice has always been yours. Posted at the Juneau Empire
About the $125,000 over and above...
$333,000.00 is what Sealaska paid out in the $25 incentive to vote last year. The extra 125 thousand dollars is to promote the Board slate (endorsed candidates) With the deck stacked like this why have elections at all, a half million dollars spent on the formality of an election that has led to entrenchment by current board members.
By laws require that all dividends must be paid out without favoritism and based on the amount of shares held by the shareholder. Sealaska pays everyone who votes $25.
This is an illegal dividend. Shareholders with more than 100 shares should receive more than the $25 and shareholders with less shares should receive less than the $25.
Sealaska's management is playing fast and loose just to nail down a quorum and get the money headed it's way.
I agree that it can be a
I agree that it can be a discouraging process, but I have to disagree that not voting is the more feasible alternative. As you said, you supported Barbara, and nearly half the current board were independents.
The question is though, how many of them have delivered on campaign promises? How do we really know they are trying to change the existing culture? Are we getting feedback and reports from our recently placed independents? Are they advocating change in the electoral process? Not that these activities are not taking place- but we want change; how do we know its happening?
It's happening...........
I didn't say you shouldn't vote. Just don't vote discretionary. Vote directed or quorum only.
I know that Barbara has tried to implement motions but can't get them seconded. Remember Sealaska spent 125 thousand dollars to keep her off the board and failed.
Not one board member congratulated her after her victory.
Your right about Will he is well qualified, but do you see Sealaska endorsing him as a Candidate for the Board?
He finishes third or fourth among the independents every year.
In the last election more than one independent candidate received more votes then incumbents but Management implemented discretionary voting and it was all four endorsed candidates won again.
Don't think that these shareholder facebook pages or the comment sections of Newspapers are not having an impact at one Sealaska Plaza. If you witnessed the annual meeting Mr.McNeil appealed to shareholders to defend the Sealaska bill on blogs. I ask myself why doesn't he or Kookesh or any of the boardmembers do it themselves?
Perhaps if a preliminary
Perhaps if a preliminary election were held; where independents agreed to have a campaign prior to the election held by Sealaska. The independents would agree that whoever won that election, they would be the only independent to run, and all the voters supporting change and new board members would direct their votes towards them?
Part of the problem is the direct votes get divided up between the individual independents; rather than concentrated on one specific candidate.
The biggest problem of course, would be organizing and managing an election, and getting enough people to agree. I know it may sound naive, but its a brainstorm to begin constructing solutions to positive change.
Geez Ravenhouse.......
Maybe we should just e-mail each other, I'm getting the feeling we're alone.
Okay the glitch is back....
I can't post more then one or two sentences. To be continued.
Good Plan Ravenhouse.........
I posted your comment (plan) at "facebooks" Sealaska Shareholders Underground, I think its a good one. Posted there you will also find a graph on the last election where you will see that one Independent received more votes then all four Sealaska "endorsed" Candidates that were elected using discretionary voting, leaving the person with the most votes "OUT" again. http://www.facebook.com/pages/Sealaska-Shareholders-Underground/32156361...
Gunalcheesh for the credit
Gunalcheesh for the credit underground... glad to see we were able to come to a positive solution through our conflict.