We appreciate that Wayne Regelin and the Territorial Sportsmen, Inc. (TSI) support the conveyance of lands to Sealaska to meet the requirements of the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA). This legislation is important for Sealaska, its shareholders, its communities and the Southeast Alaska region. It is one of the most significant economic stimulus opportunities for all of Southeast Alaska.
Unfortunately, the recent opinion piece by Regelin has factual errors and suggests that the author has not read the current legislation or does not understand it. Sealaska has been open to meeting with the author and the various interest groups. I would like to suggest that if they have questions they should contact Sealaska to get their questions answered, rather than disseminating factually inaccurate information.
The opinion piece includes factual errors which I will clarify here:
1. Regelin suggests the legislation will hinder public access to lands. Yet Section 17(b) of ANCSA already preserves access to public lands and waterways based on present existing use. Moreover, to address concerns like those raised by Regelin (that section 17(b) may not be enough) the legislation guarantees public access to the economic lands Sealaska will receive. Additional access is provided across the narrow migration corridors and Native Futures sites. Public access is even provided across cultural and sacred properties if no alternative access to public land is available. The Alaska congressional delegation has made exceptional accommodations for public access — more than any of the critics of this legislation would agree to on their own lands.
2. This legislation does not reopen ANCSA throughout Alaska. The Southeast region was treated differently in ANCSA. No other regional corporation has similarly been restricted to small selection boxes around only certain identified villages within its region. We remain perplexed why this remains an issue after public meetings held, and statements issued, by our congressional delegation and Sealaska have explained why it does not set a precedent.
3. There is a concern that passage of the legislation will lead to Endangered Species Act listings for old growth dependent species. Obviously this is a concern for Sealaska too, as it would implicate our ability to use our land. As a result, Sealaska is working closely with scientists and specialists regarding the Forest Service conservation strategy to ensure that the legislation does not result in a listing.
4. Although Sealaska was given an entitlement to land under ANCSA, almost all of the land in Southeast Alaska was already claimed for the Forest Service or Park Service. In addition, much of the Tongass National Forest was tied up to meet the needs of long-term timber sale contracts. Sealaska’s only choice was to select lands withdrawn for village corporation selection, and even then Sealaska selections went second to the village corporations. No other region was treated in this manner. When given the opportunity to select some lands with severe limitations within our homeland, or none at all, the decision was clear.
5. The author claims Sealaska made its selections from within the withdrawal areas, per a deadline established by federal law, but fails to mention that Sealaska made clear at that time that conveyances were not suitable for selection and that legislation would be pursued to develop appropriate alternative selections. The My Turn fails to disclose that places to which Sealaska has selection rights today include a watershed where the city of Craig secures its public drinking water and other important watershed and community use areas. We can assure Regelin and the broader public that the public interest is not best served by requiring those priority areas within the ANCSA withdrawn lands to be conveyed.
I appreciate the opportunity correct the misrepresentations in the My Turn from the author and his organization. We invite them and all others to confer with Sealaska to discuss the matters that concern them.
• Araujo is the vice president and general counsel at Sealaska Corporation, and has been handling this issue on Sealaska’s behalf for over 10 years.
Comments (72)
Add commentIt's a corrupt land grab. Nothing more.
Land for votes.
Sealaska endorsed Murkowski, who got re-elected with Sealaska's endorsement, even though Native Alaskans typically endorse Democrats. Sealaska turned its back on the Democrat candidate for the Senate, and that candidate was a Native!
Sealaska has very dirty knees.
Sealaska has a disreputable reputation.
I got news for the author. Southeast Alaska is now MY homeland as well as tens of thousands of others; Native and non-native.
And an overwhelming majority of us DO NOT WANT land conveyed to Sealaska which is outside of the original ANCSA boundaries. To convey land outside of those original boundaries would benefit Sealaska ONLY. And this is corrupt, no matter how much lipstick you put on the thing.
Senator Murkowski and the
Senator Murkowski and the corporation are very much playing russian roulette with an ESA listing for the region based on the most recent Fish and Wildlife Service determination with regard to the listing. That determination was very explicit about stating that the agency would need to revisit the decision that listing was not appropriate at that time if there were significant transfers of land ownership out of federal hands. The problem is the weak standards for logging private land under Alaska law.
The very fact that Ms. Araujo concedes that this is an issue raises questions about the corporation's promises to change its land "stewardship" practices. In reality, she is admitting that Sealaska and the delegation are perfectly comfortable bringing several species to the brink of extinction for a one-time liquidation of forest resources. Note that her main concern seems to be not the extinction risks to wildlife, but the restrictions on Sealaska's ability to use its land.
Not convinced that playing russian roulette with the ESA will be much of an economic stimulus for the region although ESA protections will probably help to lessen the significant negative economic impacts to fisheries and tourism because it would "implicate" the ability for the corporation to clearcut its lands.
@ Jo MacNamara
@ Joe MacNamara: The Land Grab happened back in 1867 when the US "bought" Alaska. Wake up, smell the coffee, learn your history, get the facts straight. We just want a piece of what was rightfully ours; hope this clears it up for you.
The only thing dirty around here is your mind and your mouth. Its not YOUR land. Your hateful bigotry is painfully obvious, as well as your profound ignorance.
Sealaska spends tens of millions and everyone benefits. Only a fool would fail to see the economic benefits of our spending, payroll, and investment.
You see, shareholders, Sealaska staff spend their money in the community buying groceries, gas, energy, entertainment, cars, clothing, etc.. The corporation does business with other businesses who profit from that activity and they hire and pay staff to provide them with goods and services, and those people go spend their paychecks buying groceries, gas, energy, entertainment, cars, clothing, etc. Sealaska gives a lot to its Non-Profit, for scholarships. Those recipients go spend their money on tuition at UAS, UAA, and UAF, pumping significant dollars into the university. Thats a basic, general point of the role Sealaska plays in the economy. Again, tens of millions is spent by Sealaska EVERY year-EVERYONE benefits from that spending. Again, only a fool would fail to comprehend and acknowledge that.
Watch out for the peanuts
Watch out for the peanuts Jaleen.... nice piece. Factual, historically empirical, quantified and qualified data that is available to the public. Mr. Regelin should be embarrassed for deliberately writing an ignorant disinformation piece.
Its hard to imagine he and others like him are in leadership roles when they lie and use disingenuous tactics to achieve their goals. They are actually of a disservice to their stakeholders and clients because they lose credibility when they demonstrate they have no integrity, thus failing to advance the organization for the better interests of its stakeholders.
Its funny how opposition to this bill crows so loudly in the Opinion pieces and blogs, and they fluff their numbers, when in reality, their a marginal group whose testimony to congress is unimpressive and flat.
The fact is, people in congress understand the "big" picture and dont drink the cool-aid being sold buy the fringe haters. They understand the importance of economic development and the significant role Sealaska plays in our regional-as well as the entire state-economy.
I'm confident the bill will pass. We will get our land. Gunalcheesh!
ravenhouse
No one alive today had anything taken from them and no one alive today took anything from anyone! In fact, US taxpayers provide many lucrative benefits to a selected group based upon race. Would Americans be better off today if the Russians had held on to Alaska?
This Empire article confirms my worst fears about the legislation and about its sponsors. Apparently Territorial Sportsmen Inc. is correct about the long narrow strip because Sealaska doesn't refute that it is in the legislation. That makes it the most outrageous legislation in my memory. This is terrible public policy.
One place where Senator Kookesh's daughter is incorrect is that she says Sealaska and the village corporations were constrained in their selections by village location and by the USFS timber sale contracts. In fact, villages went for the best timber regardless of village location, and the best timber was not in any contract; Angoon went for Prince of Wales Island and Haines/Klukwan went for Long Island for example. Sitka went for Admiralty Island.
There were no misrepresentations in what Territorial Sportsmen Inc. wrote. It's arrogant and possibly racist to suggest that anyone represented by Murkowski, Young and Begich should contact Sealaska Corporation to learn about legislation sponsored by (and presumably written by) people we elected. Sealaska Corporation believes they have a superior position with people Alaskans send to Congress, and I am afraid that private company is correct.
That long narrow strip is an
That long narrow strip is an easement (passageway) request for travelers to go by land. At the end of the trail there are waterways, which will be travelled by canoes to culture camps.
Those lands are currently held by the US Forest Service and are NOT accessible to the public. Once the legislation passes, it will be a trail for culture camps. Pursuant to the legislation, the public will have access to those trails as well, where prior to the legislation, they did not.
So, please, explain to me, how its bad for hunters and fisherman, who prior to our legislation, were denied access to areas of the Tongass held by USFS, but are then able to access it for hunting and fishing AFTER our legislation passes? Please help me to wrap my head around my Regelin's logic: No access for us before; Access after- Access is bad for fisherman and hunters. Hmmmmm..... also, does he forget we are hunters and fisherman too?
How so Ravenhouse, how are
How so Ravenhouse, how are they not open to the public now? I can go walk any beach or freely wander in the forest right now. Oh, except for North Douglas where it is posted that any non-tribal members are trespassing.
US taxpayers pay for ALL
US taxpayers pay for ALL Alaskan's lifestyle glacierdog. We pay no state taxes, income or sales. We get a dividend and our oil revenues pay for everything and and a fat chunk goes into the Permanent Fund- we have tens of billions in savings and cry to the Fed's how were broke and beg for subsidies, grants, and earmarks. Uncle Ted and and Don Young have brought in trillions with the argument were trying to develop out economy. Thats exactly what ANCSA Native corps have been doing since there inception.
No one alive had anything taken from them? Pretty skewed spin on logic there; I believe you would have trouble finding a receptive audience to that argument aside from bigots. I guess what your saying according to your model of logic is no one alive today built what was built before they were born, so they dont deserve that either. Think about the logical model before you present your argument. A + B must equal C. If you dont follow a logical, mathematical flow, your argument is purely emotionally driven, and therefore has no true validity to it.
History
Ravenhouse, you might want to read a little history yourself. Please don't depend upon the Juneau school system by itself to give anyone a good education. The fact is that historians agree that without US intervention and at the time very new US military strength there is no question that because of Russian weakness in the late 19th Century and early 20th Century Japan would have controlled Siberia just as it controlled Manchuria. So had the US not already owned and occupied Alaska there is no question that Japan would have also taken Alaska at that time if the US had not pushed back against Japan. Britain supported Japan at that time because it kept the Russians from helping the German states. All this led to an arms limitation treaty between the US, Japan and GB negotiated in PA, in 1921 I believe, which capped the naval fleets. That helps explain why FDR leaving much of US naval power at Pearl Harbor for the Japanese (with Japan then destroying much of it of course) allowed Japan to believe they could defeat the US and control the entire Pacific part of the globe. Nowhere in all of this is a possible scenario in which people who today claim to be indigenous Alaskans would have more autonomy (let alone a better deal financially) than they have. And wealth given to a select few by US taxpayers, and then filtered through an even more select few when they spend it, does not make an economy. It's far more fair to keep the land in the hands of the inept USFS.
Thats Goldbelt land; not
Thats Goldbelt land; not Sealaska. You can access any and all Sealaska land now; not just the proposed selections. Goldbelt has their reasons I'm sure. But the areas that were mentioned are USFS land. And there are areas in Glacier bay you cant go in. And no, you cant go wherever you want. Ive been warned by the USFS staff for walking out on a point thats off limits to the public because of nesting grounds, and you cant fish in certain areas or hunt seal on USFS land. All of which Im fine with; there are plenty of places otherwise to hunt and fish.
Land ownership
The claim that taking land out of federal ownership and giving it to a private company allows better access by Alaskans is crazy. We all need to write to Congress, and any relatives any of us have in other states need to alert their people in Congress. This is corrupt legislation, and the process has been corrupted by the land grabbers!
Well historians,
Well historians, philosophers, Political science professors... essentially social scientists and humanities academics discuss the issue: "Do The Ends Justify the Means?". The curriculum and thesis of the classes generally points to the conclusion, that no, they dont. Coulda woulda shoulda, we can play the "what if" game all day. Sealaska is simply asking for a fair deal. Not mountain tops, salt water, rock, muskeg, and watersheds. Its asking for areas that have been logged multiple times since the turn of the century. Not asking much.
Finally, I do have an education beyond highschool. I have a graduate level education and majored in history. FYI
How is requesting .04% of
How is requesting .04% of of the Tongass when the Natives owned 100% a land grab? Im not crazy; your just stupid.
My point is that just because
My point is that just because it is forest service land doesnt mean you cant go there, or that because it is native corp land you can. Goldbelt keeps theirs closed. And I would fully expect a nesting ground to be protected regardless of who owns it. Are you suggesting the once Sealaska owns the land you can trample nests at will? Your logic is flawed. Glacier bay is NPS, not USFS and that was because it is a special place that they didnt want trashed. They are a little over zealous but I get what they are doing. None of the areas that I have seen that are selected are "Locked up" by the USFS. They are public lands right now. I could go wander at will. In fact some are heavily used by the communities nearby and they are very concerned that their "backyard" will be given to a private, for profit organization with a less than stellar track record.
I think I said in my post I
I think I said in my post I respected that they were nesting grounds- I get why; my point was that you cant go wherever you want which was your statement. Wow, your pretty good at spin; you must work for SEACC.
Furthermore, once the legislation passes, it will be law. Sealaska cant change the rules without violating the legislation. Its in the bill that Sealaska will give all people access, it has to follow that. IT wont be able to change the rules willy nilly; if its in the law, its the law and it stays the law.
Where is your proof that Sealaska has a "less than stellar" record? Please for once, I would like to see someone qualify that argument. When I say PROOF I mean LEGAL, DATA DRIVEN QUANTIFIED, DOCUMENTED PROOF- Not subjective emotional opinions based on heresay, and biased, prejudiced radical views.
ANCSA and "the legislation" ("S.730") ARE VERY DIFFERENT
Clever tactic, for Sealaska's Vice President to write an opinion piece on legislation without even identifying it. This creates the opportunity to confuse the public on differentiating ANCSA from Murkowski's current and previously failed attempts to have it rewritten by the worst land managers in the history of the Tongass: Sealaska Corporation.
The legislation, of course, is S. 730, advanced by Alaska's ruling Murkowski family as chief privatizers of the Tongass National Forest.
Senator Lisa Murkowski following in her father's ideological footsteps, handed the legislative pen to Sealaska in gratitude for their generous campaign contributions which were essential to saving Murkowski's seat in the Senate.
In the name of fulfilling ANCSA "promises" S.730 is just another grand scam of a taxpayer rip-off which would create a timber monopoly on the Tongass completely free from federal environmental regulations.
The simple truth is ANCSA "promises" are already fulfilled as Sealaska has already made their land selections and are on file with the BLM. They are just asking BLM to not process those claims.
This legislation called S.730 is a political payback, a naked land grab and a taxpayer rip-off.
On the points ms. Araujo says
On the points ms. Araujo says are false. You notice she says access ACROSS Future sites will be given, no where does she say USE of Future sites. On Economic lands = access will be preserved based on present existing use.... this means if an area is a Old Growth Reserve , those same uses can be done there that were done before. Except of course it will be logged off and so you will not want to go there for the same reasons you did before. Also Permits for guide hunters will only be extended for 10 years and then you are out of luck. Also Non natives who currently use these lands for subsistence will no longer be able to do so because they ONLY have subsistence rights on Federal Lands.
The legislation itself does not reopen ANCSA, but Ms. Araujo herself said in Wrangell at their meeting last year that if this legislation passes it could serve as precedent in the future. She also stated, " A lot of land issues in Alaska have lost some traction and we are hoping with our bill to lay a foundation to get some things done on Alaska native land issues.
Jay Jensen ( BLM), last year stated before the Senate " Lands subject to timber sale activities were NOT eliminated from the withdrawal areas from which Sealaska made it's selections"
Lots more spin from a spin Dr.
You call that spin? So
You call that spin? So anyone who points out your inconsistencies or disagrees with you is a spin dr? So how about I say that I can go anywhere I want but those closed areas were areas I didnt want to go to. Therefore my statement was correct. That would be spin. Yes they have some rules. There are USFS areas you cant shoot seals from, like Auke Rec. I dont know that for sure but if you walked past the picnickers and over the kids playing in the tidepool and blasted a seal, they might object. I notice you also didnt quantify your statement about areas you cant shoot a seal. But bottom line, for the vast majority, these areas are public. Sealaska has a history of logging their lands. I am not opposed to that, but they tend to clearcut. Clearcutting is not a viable and healthy practise to ensure healthy forests and forest inhabitants, nor salmon streams. So what does Sealaksa say they will do with this new land?
Al so from Mr. Jensen , "It
Al so from Mr. Jensen , "It is important to note that sufficient uplands exist within Sealaskas existing selections to convey it's full entitlements under ANCSA.
After harvesting their best lands first, Sealaska wants to trade their less valuable old growth for more valuable. looking on their selections overlayed on a USFS map, you can see that they are targeting Volume class 6-7 old growth, and of course the oldest second growth. Many of these places are valuable fish and deer habitat. Fish streams will only be protected by 100 ft buffers for 5 years, then they can go back in. Sealaska was issued the largest fine ever for stream buffer violations, they have left timber on the ground to rot when prices dropped and the loss was worth more to them as a operating loss and tax write off.
We need a break from all the --Sealaska as good steward propaganda.
good point about stewardship ravensquak
This seems to be one of the most widely abused words in the English language. It should be eliminated from the dictionary and replaced with a link to a recent addition: greenwashing.
Man your running with that
Man your running with that line like a crazy king... Ive never said once that people should shoot seal in Auke rec. Calm down and stop over reacting. I clearly said I respect the reasons they have for zoning off certain areas and I agree to preserve nesting grounds and hunting should occur in appropriate areas; not where families recreate. Only a maniac would make a statement like that. Im reinforcing that there are plenty of other areas to hunt. My other point is that you cant walk wherever you want to-for good reason.
On that note, I know a few years ago, some hunters shot a bear when families with their kids and tourists were observing the bear. Personally, I thought that was ridiculous behavior and even if it was legal, no one with common sense should hunt an animal with kids and other spectators around.
@ Davian: You have made
@ Davian: You have made logical arguments in the past, but land grab? I have a hard time believing you would play that weak card.The Land Grab happened back in 1867 when the US "bought" Alaska; in effect stealing the Native peoples land. The Federal government agreed and thats why ANCSA occurred.
Wake up, smell the coffee, stick to the facts Davian. Returning .04% of the Tongass to the original and rightful owners is pursuant to ANCSA; not a "Land Grab". Calling the return of stolen property to original ownership a "Land grab" is an absurd, outlandish notion. Save your peanuts for the next show, I think you might be running out Davian.
Who are the rightful owners?
Who are the rightful owners? What about the folks who were here before the Tlingit?
Oh as far as tax payer rip
Oh as far as tax payer rip offs... Alaskan's in general have been ripping off Lower 48 taxpayers for decades. We get 7$ back in subsidies, grants, and earmarks for every buck we cough up to the Fed. Oh and we dont pay state taxes. Oh, and we get a PFD. Oh, and we have tens of billions in the Permanent fund... but we beg for federal dollars. Biggest rip offs in the world... Alaskan residents.
you mean the rocks? the fish?
you mean the rocks? the fish? the trees? Yeah they were here before us.... true
Sealaska likes to say"This is
Sealaska likes to say"This is our land, we have been here for 10,000 years" has this been substantiated ? To my knowledge 'One your Knee's Cave man has never been linked to any local natives through his DNA, though links have been found to natives in Central and South America. What if you go back 20,000 years? where were your ancestors then? or 30,000. Where were mine for that matter. You can be selective about your origins by how far you want to look back, but the fact is we all came from the same place and some of us are in the same place again. Unless you believe in creationism and think this was the Garden of Eden, which would mean we all came from this place. A few years ago when National Geographic did DNA testing all over the globe to see what links they could find I remember one close (relatively speaking ) match was between a Sioux native and a woman from Greece
While the origins of Native
While the origins of Native Americans isn't fully known (what is known is that they were originally Asiatic peoples who migrated sometime during the last ice age--not people from Greece), I can say with 100% certainty that any pre-Tlingit peoples did not have their land taken from them by colonialists, their cultures were not marginalized and almost destroyed, and there was no organized genocide as there was just a century and a half ago here in the U.S.
Another big difference: the pre-Tlingit peoples (who likely gave rise to Tlingits and other tribes) are not complaining about the Tlingits who took their land, as they are not around. Tlingits are, and their land was taken from them.
It is also important to recognize that Sealaska is not the same as the Tlingit people.
Convenient
How convenient that the author, who happens to be Al Kookesh's daughter, is the lawyer for Sealaska. She is one of the most pompous people I have ever heard speak, and makes her own rules just like her father. Wayne Regelin KNOWS the real facts of this land grab. Sealaska should only get what was originally allotted, not one acre more.
Archaeological and genetic
Archaeological and genetic evidence say otherwise. True, the Alaska'n Native people were spared the deliberate system of killing. But its in the history books that Natives were marginalized and aggressive attempts were made to destroy their culture with the introduction of canneries, over-fishing, and religion. The salmon were the base to Northwest Coast peoples Social, Economic, and political life. They took our fish like they slaughtered the Buffalo to get the tribes to capitulate to the government and its expansion policies.
Its all in the history, ethnography, and common knowledge to Tlingits, Tsimshian, and Haida, as well as other tribes.
Sealaska is different, but it is a representation of Tlingits, Haidas, Tsimshian, and other tribal members who lived in SE when ANCSA was in effect.
Glad you agree with Sealaska
Glad you agree with Sealaska AK Patriot.... their only asking for their remaining 85,000 acres; not MORE. Like Regelin, you clearly haven't read the legislation and or don't understand the facts.