The battle over the Sealaska Lands Bill has been going on for decades. The arguments continued this week when Sealaska Corp. presented revisions in Congressional hearings this week. Controversies arose over the land claim amendments, particularly those that would allow the company to select acres outside its original entitlement.
Senate Bill 730 went in front of the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources on Wednesday. House Resolution 1408 went before the House Subcommittee on Indian and Alaska Native Affairs the following day. Sealaska President and Chief Executive Officer Chris McNeil said the next phase will be for the committees to decide if they support their respective bills or not before they can move to the floors of both chambers of Congress.
McNeil said the reason for the hearings is essentially to present the pros and cons of what he describes as “technically brand new bills” before Congress. He said he pleased with how the proceedings went.
“We were able to provide a clear, rational bill,” he said.
McNeil said the amendments were added because Sealaska was promised an additional 85,000 acres when the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act originally passed. He said this has been a long time coming for tribal members and shareholders.
“The Lands Bill is important because it fulfills a promise and recognizes our presence and culture in Alaska,” he said.
He emphasized the lands bill is also important in sustaining the timber industry and economics. He and Sealaska Vice President Rick Harris say the proposed land settlement is fair and economical.
“Without this bill there’s a strong likelihood there will be a negative impact because the timber industry will collapse,” McNeil said. “We really need the Sealaska contribution and want to be sure to be able to maintain the economy and jobs in Southeast Alaska.”
Sen. Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, echoed those concerns Wednesday, The Associated Press reported.
“The timber industry in Southeast Alaska is hanging by a thread,” Murkowski told the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, where she is the ranking member. “Without passage of this bill, Alaska will likely be forced out of the timber industry.”
Harris said about 20,000 additional acres, predominantly in northern Prince of Wales Island and some other areas, are included in the House bill to help address management of second growth forest. McNeil added that the bill is very consistent with the Obama administration’s intentions for old growth areas.
The bill has caused its share of controversies over the years, and many arguments came out again as the week’s hearings drew closer. According to the AP, the dispute is not focused on the fact Sealaska is owed land under ANSCA, but that some of the land that would be transferred to the Juneau-based Native corporation is outside the area designated by that 1971 act.
Bob Clause, Forest Program Director for Southeast Alaska Conservation Council, testified before the House subcommittee. He said the Senate bill proceedings went pretty well but H.R. 1408 was more controversial with some “major differences” in the bills and harsh questioning by the opposition.
“We are committed to a broad balance solution and economic needs and needs of the Tongass,” he said, adding, “Especially, the House version of the bill doesn’t even come close to that.”
He said that the current law gives Sealaska land selection within certain established “boxes.” The amendments would allow selections from outside these.
Alaska Wilderness League Executive Director Cindy Shogan said improvements are still needed in the bills because they still threaten old growth and watersheds. She said House bill was especially a concern due to the extra acres it provided.
Besides the acres, she was concerned about the inclusion of 100-foot buffers for up to five years to protect fish streams.
“It could be modified to be permanent,” she said.
Harris said permanent buffers are not equitable to shareholders and that Sealaska has been doing stand-alone research on buffer effects for about 15 years.
“We’re not afraid of the science to determine what buffers are needed and we’re committed to developing a good science-based process,” he said. “If science proves wide buffers are needed, we will support that.”
Shogan felt the Senate bill’s language was less imposing because Sens. Murkowski and Mark Begich, D-Alaska, communicated with the communities to work on the bill, although she said there’s still room for improvement.
“I think the revised legislation reflects what she heard,” she said.
Shogan said settling Sealaska’s claim must be resolved, as it has been to controversial between neighboring Southeast communities.
Other groups that have spoken out against the bill include the National Audubon Society and the Wilderness Society, mostly against the broadened land selection. The Audubon Society states this will unbalance public and private interests and no new land selection is needed. The Wilderness Society states it undermines efforts to move toward a stable, viable Southeast economy that the Forest Service is already committed to working toward.
Harris said the majority of arguments against the Lands Bill are often narrow-sighted and don’t take all matters into account. He said economics is an important part that is often left out.
“The credibility of our legislation is that cultural properties, conservation and jobs are addressed,” he said. “What we don’t see in most of those is they focus on the wildlife side but not the other things that are critical.”
He said the Audubon Society also ignores the selected lands’ values that play an important role.
McNeil said the implication that Sealaska would get more land than it is entitled to is false. He added the additional lands would be much more second growth than those in the original entitlement, and second growth is a market Sealaska is developing.
He said the bill is vital to the timber industry, which has changed over the years and the corporation is “on the forefront” of making changes within that industry.
“We would like to be a participant in the Alaska timber economy on the basis of what we determine to be best use of resources, including selling into export markets as well as looking at bioenergy possibilities,” McNeil said.
McNeil said Sealaska worked on these amendments after careful and community-oriented consideration. He said the corporation held more than 200 meetings with stakeholders over the last few years, as well as with the government, most recently with the Department of Agriculture.
“There will be issues that will be continued to be discussed. We are aware of that and would like to continue communications with all parties of interest,” said McNeil.
Concerns remain in the Department of Agriculture. The AP reported the department’s Harris Sherman told the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources some of the lands that Sealaska wants are vital to the future direction of the forest as it moves away from old-growth cutting and toward sustainable second-growth.
• Contact reporter Jonathan Grass at 523-2276 or at jonathan.grass@juneauempire.com.
Comments (19)
Add commentImagine That!
"He (McNeil) and Sealaska Vice President Rick Harris say the proposed land settlement is fair and economical."
What kind of statement is that in a supposedly unbiased news story? And what on earth would you expect the Pres. and the VP of the corporation to say? From their mouths it's absolutely meaningless. It's like a fox saying "Of course we think chickens taste good"
Love another quote too ............"Harris said permanent buffers are not equitable to shareholders"
Really? ................ Well of course not, because it doesn't allow them to rape more trees for their profit.
The more this bill muddles its way around, the more Sealaska makes me Gag. Stewards of the land? Give me a break.
my favorite Harris quote
"We would like to be a participant in the Alaska timber economy on the basis of what we determine to be best use of resources." Rick Harris
Wow. Throw everyone else in Southeast under the bus so we can keep the extremely well compensated Sealaska staff and board in Juneau (and Kirkland - hello Chris McNeil) living in a style they are accustomed to.
You want unbiased but its so
You want unbiased but its so painfully obvious your biased against Sealaska with your prejudice slurs. The blatant hypocrisy I witness on these posts are too hilarious... how can anyone be so ignorant to accuse and ridicule behavior they exemplify? These forums are great for comic book writing material
Biased against Sealaska - of course
Yes, I am biased against Sealaska. I will be as long as they continue to do everything in their power to prevent independent candidates from running in a fair election. As long as they cloak themselves in rhetoric about caring for the land, while clearcutting on a scale never before seen in Southeast Alaska.
Time is running out. By their own admission, the Sealaska Timber Corporation will fail without more land to cut. Another business bit the dust last year, the Cloverdale Casino is mired in controversy, and our dividends are dependent on profit-sharing from other corporations.
Certainly if someone is commenting on a thread they have strong opinions on the topic and are probably not unbiased. I believe Brad F. was stating that his news network was unbiased, and we all know that's not true. I would not expect someone as passionate as Brad to be unbiased in presenting topics that he cares so deeply about.
I will debate the issues with you but I will not respond to personal attacks.
Then I suggest you avoid them
Then I suggest you avoid them yourself-your personal attacks on Sealaska staff are deserving of a countermand. If you want positive dialogue, you need to demonstrate it.
The last proxy statement I saw the independents had just as much an opportunity to speak about their agenda and platform as much as any incumbent on the board. My relative who attended several community meetings said she was impressed with the level of support and encouragement from current board members to the independent candidates who had an equal opportunity to speak to the audience.
How could it be more fair? Equal media opportunity and equal public access. The shareholders need to step up and vote-if they don't like the current slate of directors its on them; not the board.
As for clear cutting-thats open to debate. Its not illegal and Sealaska is not a number one suspect to the EPA or any other governmental agencies list for being an environmental nightmare. Its factual that clear cutting has positive impacts in certain areas-not all- and Sealaska doesnt clear cut everything; it doesnt cut everything period. Some lands are left as is for historical and cultural reasons. Furthermore they manage second growth areas that are beneficial for browsing, and recreating. These are facts and documented truths.
You want meaningful discussion then you need to speak on facts and empirical data. But your own comments are ad hominem and subjective qualitative arguments. I'm confused as to what your really wanting from this forum.
Federal tax laws allowed
Federal tax laws allowed corporations to selltheir timber losses to other businesses. These other businesses could then write them off against their taxable income and reduce their taxes.
The losses from actual logging operations were called hard net operating losses (NOLs), but there was bigger money to be made from selling additional losses called soft NOLs. Soft NOLs are a loss in asset value such as standing timber, or a home values after the sub-prime crisis.
When the Native corporations first got title to their timber lands they had it appraised to determine the value of the standing timber.
It was soon apparent that the appraised values were higher than what the revenues from actual timber sales would indicate. This difference became a starting point for the soft NOLs. Moreover, the Native corporations learned that these soft NOLs could be made even greater if they could convince IRS that Native timber was under-valued when the original appraisals were made.
And indeed, that is just what happened. The timber was reappraised and the resulting new standing timber values became higher. When the higher starting timber values were compared to current market values, an even greater soft loss was indicated.
The intent was to sell the soft NOLs, just like the hard NOLs. However, there was another hitch. The IRS would not accept just paper accounting losses to generate a saleable NOL. IRS required the Native corporations to sell their lands to incur an "actual" loss. Long story short, much of the village timber land was sold to Sealaska Timber Corp. and Koncor -- another timber company having joint ventures with Native corporations.
With former village lands under Sealaska ownership, Sealaska Corp. went back to Congress to amend ANCSA so that they could make further land selections within the village set-aside areas. This allowed Sealaska to consolidate a large timber base in areas like Hoonah.
More importantly, the consolidated ownership allowed Sealaska Corp. to launch large-scale logging to maximize profits. Logging was accelerated and unfortunately the ANCSA provisions for sustainable logging and local processing were simply ignored. So what?
Sealaska now wants high-quality timber lands on Prince of Wales Island for the old-growth they have left behind in their ANCSA selection areas.
Some corporate leaders admit to past mistakes and others make promises of better management, but no one seems to be willing to commit these new constraints to paper.
New logs would still be exported. Simply stated, it is more of the same and we should just say no.
One last point, the Alaska Pulp Corporation offered to buy the cut and down Native logs that were not exportable. However, there was no interest. Why? Because it interfered with the NOLs.
Sealaska elections not fair
You're right. I shouldn't have described the Sealaska staff and board in a deragatory manner. I have edited my post.
Allowing independent candidates to speak is a step in the right direction, but isn't it interesting that this is not guaranteed. The board endorsed candidates received a glossy spread in the annual report which comes out before the proxies, and please correct me if I'm wrong, free flights and per diem to attend the shareholder information meetings and facebook pages set up by staff. Hardly a level playing field.
Probably the most deterimental tactic is the timing of the proxies. Recieving a proxy with a $25 incentive to vote early, before independent candidate materials come out is a almost foolproof way to re-elect board endorsed candidates.
I think independent candidate Richard Rinehart explains it well. "Historically there have been a large percentage of votes discretionary that the incumbent Board has been able to allocate as they see fit and thereby keep themselves in power. " He adds in another statement, " Not only does the current system limit the natural fluidity of rotation, but it can also limit the independence of existing board members. They have to go along with the rest of the Board or they may not find themselves in favor with the Board appointed "Proxy Holders" who decide how to allocate discretionary votes.
Since Richard held a high position at Sealaska for many years, prior to running as an independent candidate, I am inclined to believe his statements.
Discretionary voting....
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. AKromper
Sealaska's fifty top managers and board members compensation for the past four years, 29.3 million dollars.
Sealaska's 20,000 shareholders, 33 million dollars over the same time period, all from Sealaska's Operations and Sealaska's Permanent Fund.
I'm excluding ANCSA dollars because Sealaska receives more than it pays in, and thousands of Sealaska shareholders don't receive ANCSA money.
I genuinely appreciate and
I genuinely appreciate and acknowledge your contraction Seinerak and apologize for any interpretation of ill will from me.
You concede to my facts and I will concede to yours. Its true the incumbents have an advantage in that they do not have to bare the financial costs of traveling, lodging, and food. Current board members have no such concerns and independents with minimal resources are at an obvious disadvantage without such resources. I agree this needs to be redressed, if not for anything more than transparency and ethical purposes.
I am unsure how Sealaska would pay for independents as there are so many. It seems it would not be feasible to pay for every independent candidate to travel to every meeting and of course, this is subjective, but not all independent candidates are equal, to be polite. But there are some strong prospects who I have really considered voting for.
Perhaps it should be a policy that incumbents pay out of pocket with no compensation from Sealaska for campaigning? This is such an unusual issue as ANCSA created such a different model. But your point is valid and interesting. I truly think it is a policy in need of revision.
It's not policy issues. It's
It's not policy issues. It's outright corruption. There is a big difference in over looking of policy's and the people that make the rules making rules to ensure they stay there. That's not a misunderstanding or "the way it's been". The rules are designed specifically to keep people in and everyone else out. If you doubt it, look at them and then post.
The comment that AKromper was responding to....
If we could get rid of the discretionary voting process all the ancient mariners on the Board would be gone in a breeze. But they covet the discretionary voting process, that is their purse string. Their retirement system should be open for all. I repeat, all shareholders. They don't do enough work to justify a sweet retirement system such as they have. Like I stated before, in another posting, the Directors don't leave the board until their death. Outsiders are quick to respond but don't know the mechanics of the Sealaska Corporation. We do indeed have a huge problem with this one. Where is my land? Where do I build my smoke house? Where do I call home? Very sad, we've been overcome, once again, by our own people! Posted by gbaymuffin
Mr.McNeil's land and home and I suppose smoke house is on a golf course in Seattle. Sealaska has been paying for his round trip airfare every week for eleven years.
the saddest thing
Not surprising that Murkowski would continue the forty-year old tradition of using the land claims issue to subsidize clearcutting the Tongass.
Sad that there is some belief that this program could continue if it was "improved."
There is no improving this.
personally I found it
personally I found it disgusting , the attitude that Don Young assumed with people who had traveled thousands of miles to testify to their beliefs in front of Congress, from his own State. He has always belittled and badgered those who don't believe as he does, and it is rude and not right.
"votes left unused...". If I
"votes left unused...". If I understand correctly, these votes do not "default" into the hands of the board. When shareholders get their proxy, they have the OPTION to sign over their votes to the Board of Directors, who will then use them as they so chose. If a shareholder does not send in a proxy, their votes are essentially wasted. This is a choice made by the shareholders...while I strongly believe that discretionary votes have no place in any Election, I also feel that as long as they are there, it is up to the shareholders to NOT give the Board that power. You don't like the Board having the power over the vote, DON'T mark discretionary...pretty simple!
lies lies lies lies
The timber industry will not "collapse." Sealaska will continue to log as long as there are trees in southeast Alaska.
The timber industry isn't "hanging on by a thread" as our dear Senator states.
Isn't lying to the Senate a federal offense?
Sealaska is a disreputable Native organization with a bad track record who has mishandled the lands already in their hands. Even their own shareholders don't trust them.
They want to cherry pick prime land outside of the original ANCSA boundaries to the detriment of everyone in southeast Alaska minus the Sealaska board.
This is a "land for votes" piece of garbage. Sealaska helped Murkowski get re-elected, and now she is paying them back by screaming that the sky is falling so they can get better lands outside the original ANCSA boundaries.
Shame on ALL of you involved.
This bill needs to go belly up.
I WISH lying to congress was
I WISH lying to congress was a jailable offense because then SEACC and friends would all be in jail.
To say someone is cherry picking when their asking for a tiny portion of what originally belonged to them as a whole and is primarily second growth is simply rediculous. The abuse of thus forum to spread disinformation is what is truly shameful.
just wait ravensquak
Young and Murkowski's disdain for the region was pretty evident in Young's comments and Murkowski's phony statements about trying to accommodate concerns.
It gets worse. Murkowski was saying in one of the radio stories that she wanted more legislation for the timber industry and another story said that the roundtable was close.
This bill is bad but whatever funny - what did Mallot call it - a "conservation" bill she comes up with next is going to be worse. And if Sealaska doesn't get theirs this time they're going to pile onto the next - "conservation" bill.
There's a good place for Sealaska's timber program, the Roundtable, and the delegation where they can log all they want and leave the other 98% of the region's economy alone.
Two-tree island.
It is cherry picking when you
It is cherry picking when you are giving up old growth that is worth 10 -- 30 % less than the old growth you are trying to get. That is part of the reason that they are having such a hard time from the USFS. The Forest service tried to let them exchange some of their land and worked with them in 2004, but Sealaska didn't want just an exchange, they wanted lands that others have tried ( and succeeded ) in protecting till now, through decades of work. Not all Old Growth is alike, by exchanging for more valuable OG on Karst hydrological systems they may end up cutting more OG trees in the long run. Also it is cherry picking if you pick second growth that is the oldest, with the most $ already invested in it by the taxpayer,-- second growth that will be the earliest to become available to local mils in the future. And it is also cherry picking when you go around selecting top recreational sites and energy sites scattered all over SE AK.
Sealaska not for-profit corporation?
Mr. Byron Mallott says the following: “A for-profit corporation is not what Sealaska is. We represent tribal people.”
If it's not a for-profit corporation then some one should tell the IRS, the shareholders, and everybody else on earth. Now they call us 'tribal shareholders', sounds like an oxymoron. They want to control ever single corner of Southeast Native life, tribal and corporate. One ruling corporate oligarchy. Good for their families bad for the rest of us villagers!