I find the need to correct some misimpressions that might have been formed after a June 2 opinion piece concerning the proposed Senate version of a Sealaska lands bill.
Concerning environmental lawsuits, I introduced the Senate bill to avoid some of the very concerns expressed in the op-ed. Currently, if Sealaska is forced to select its final acreage guaranteed to the corporation by the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act, it will be taking 63,484 acres of wildlife habitat that currently is classified as old-growth preserve areas by the U.S. Forest Service. Under the proposed Senate bill the Native corporation will take just 17,875 acres of old-growth preserve timber — less than three-tenths as much — I believe this will substantially lessen, not increase, the danger of a successful environmental group lawsuit over threats to wildlife habitat.
Concerning access, the current Senate bill clearly contains provisions, the same Section 17(b) and 14(g) easement provisions contained in the original lands settlement act, which requires full public access, both over and across all lands conveyed by the bill, including the three traditional and customary trade and migration routes and so-called “future” sites. And the bill contains an added provision to guarantee access across the trade routes so no lands can be blocked access. The future sites were created so that Sealaska can diversify out of old-growth logging activities in the Tongass and have less impact on wildlife and fisheries.
The bill actually conveys fewer separate parcels than if Sealaska had to stay within its existing withdrawals (53 compared to 42 of those sites). The bill also clearly requires Sealaska to allow hunters, fishermen and subsistence users open access to all of their potential 70,000 plus acres of commercial timber lands — except during active logging operations — a benefit that outdoorsmen do not enjoy on the other 44 million acres of Native corporation private lands in the rest of Alaska or would not enjoy should Sealaska stay inside its current selection areas. The bill protects wildlife and tour guides access to their existing areas for up to two decades based on current Forest Service rules.
And concerning precedents, the Sealaska bill will not set a precedent for any other Native corporation to “reopen” the 40-year-old lands act. All 11 of the other in-state Native corporations have already received the vast majority of their lands. Only Sealaska has been forced to wait for the distribution of reserve pool lands for a large percentage of its ultimate land selections under ANCSA’s aboriginal land claims settlement.
I have tried mightily to make sure that the Sealaska bill will allow the corporation’s shareholders to receive lands that have fewer environmental impacts than if they proceed to make selections from the 112,000 acres of old-growth timber within their original selection “boxes.” I already have made more than 150 changes to the bill to meet Southeasterners concerns, and I’m open to further improvements and clarifications to prevent unintended consequences. I will again review the bill’s access provisions, but I feel many of the concerns raised in the op-ed have already been addressed in the changes we have made to the bill.
• Murkowski is a U.S. Senator.
Comments (47)
Add commentIt's Old Growth Reserves ,
It's Old Growth Reserves , areas that are set aside separate from other old growth, which comes in various degrees of productivity. She does not say how Sealaska wants to trade average old growth for more productive and valuable for wildlife old growth. Also that much of this is still on Karst
Access ACROSS native lands.
We can hunt, fish, have subsistence, on timber lands. Not much good after it.s been clear cut. Also non natives do not have subsistence rights on Private land, as the Senator should know having been a life time Alaskan. Possibly she does not know their is a difference between subsistence regulations and regular hunting regulations
Tour guides would get to keep using the lands they built their businesses around for another 2 decades. Hopefully they are all old and did not want to pass on their business to their children.
Lands with fewer environmental impacts? says who? where is the documentation that the land they are trying to protect is less sensitive. They don't have to pick the watersheds. Stated by the BLM 2009 " It is important to note that sufficient uplands exist within Sealaskas existing selections to convey it's full entitlements"
Over and across the land is not the same as use
On the 3,600 acres Sealaska may select throughout the Tongass as sacred sites, the public is only allowed access over and across the land. In Sitka, where a BLM conveyance of Redoubt Falls is working its way to completion, this means the public is allowed to walk across Sealaska land to access surrounding Forest Service land. They are not guaranteed the right to stop and subsistence fish for sockeye.
A similar situation may be created at virtually every sockeye stream in the Baranof Island area which were clearly identified as Sealaska selections in early versions of the bill. Sealaska has said that there is nothing to worry about, yet their website makes it clear that non-shareholders need permission to access Sealaska land and Jaleen is on record as saying that access will be allowed on a case by case basis.
Help us understand Senator.........
After the Gulf spill your still for offshore drilling. After the meltdown in Japan your still for Nuclear Power. After Hoonah and Kake clear cuts your still for the Corporation that is responsible.
The Tongass has been gutted of its old growth timber yet Sealaska Shareholders are still dirt poor.
Could you set the record straight on these issues Senator?
Over and Across is not the same as use of land
In the 3,600 acres Sealaska will be selecting in the current bill as sacred sites, the public will only be guaranteed the right to cross the land (and I believe this is if there are no reasonable alternatives). In Sitka, the blm conveyance of Redoubt Falls to Sealaska is example of the potential problems. The public may cross Sealaska's holding at Redoubt Falls to access the surrounding Forest Service land. According to the easement provisions, this does not allow the public to stop along the way and fish. In earlier versions of the bill it was clear that Sealaska was selecting virtually every sockeye stream in the Baranof Island area.
Sealaska has told the public not to worry. Yet their stated land policy on their website makes it clear that non-shareholders need permission to use Sealaska land and Jaleen has stated that public access will be available on a case by case basis.
That is a reasonable,
That is a reasonable, unambiguous, logical, straight forward letter that puts it in layman's terms what the bill does for folks. Thanks for letter Senator.
Originally I was waiting to see what Joe Miller had to say, but from my perspective, I felt he was pretty unfair to her and thought his platform was more or less "Attack Lisa" not so much demonstrate his political package and how it would benefit Alaskan's. His arrogant attacks on her is what lost my vote to him; I'm glad I voted for Lisa.
Good to see Juneau Empire printing pieces by people Like Jaleen Araujo and Senator Murkowski who actually have to take responsibility for their words; those are the articles that should be validated.
Wow - Murkowski bold to try misleading like this
No time at the moment to point out all the flaws, mistruths and misleading statements in this attempt to 'manage' consituents. The legislation specifically takes away your legal right to challenge Sealaska's denial of public access on lands. It has stupid insulting temporary fisheries buffers. This is the worst hide the ball pile of C I've ever seen packaged. Enough is enough. Time for Southeasterners to rip this thing down. Murkowski has been bought and sold.
2010 Sealaska Report devotes a page to Lisa Murkowski
I found it strange and inappropriate that an entire page of the 2010 Sealaska Annual Report was devoted the write-in campaign for Lisa Murkowski, a campaign co-chaired by Byron Mallot (board member for Sealaska) who loaned the Sealaska Director of Commnications to the campaign.
Then Rosita Worl (who is on the management slate for this year's Sealaska elections) on her facebook page features a photo of Lisa paying her a personal visit in her Sealaska offices. Don't forget that Rosita was with Al Kookesh when he threatened Craig and Sitka last year at the community meetings.
But Sealaska doesn't feel it is important to enough to explain to shareholders the failure of the Cloverdale Casino in Northern California or the closure of Olympic Fabrication in Shelton, WA.
The overall financial performance for 2010 for the present board & management for Sealaska shows a decline of net income in millions from $20,285 in 2009 to $15,185 in 2010 attributable to Sealaska.
Good point, SealaskaShareholdersUnderground
Hey Albert Kookesh ... why don't you explain why the Sealaska shareholders are seeing very, very little of the huge money you've arranged to take for yourself.
And with all your money, why is your daughter who works as the Sealaska lawyer (surprised?) unable to understand the facts of the current land deal and then write truthfully on the topic? Or did you edit her writing?
Do I have this right?
Is Senator Murkowski saying Alaskans can not harvest a renewable resources, trees, off of an additional 63,000 acres of lands promised to Sealaska Corporation because the anti- timber industry will sue? The Tongass National Forest is over 16 million acres large, how much "preserved lands" in SE is enough? What about the Alaskans who would like to spend their lives in a renewable forest harvesting timber as their occupation?
What Nonsense!
What nonsense from the queen of greed and lies! This is a weak retort by her at best. No one - or very few - in the public are complaining about not being able to access the ANCSA areas that are in line to be conveyed. No one is complaining about any OGR areas that will be selected under the BLM conveyance areas. And it's a joke to say the public and outfitter-guides will "enjoy access" to Sealaska's new areas "unless they are logging"...or putting up its own lodges, or whatever else. Sealaska gets the areas, no one is going to WANT to go there any more.
The bottom line is, this is an egregious land heist, no matter how "good" they want to pretend it is for us. We don't want our best public lands snatched out from under us and given on a silver platter to a private corporation for its immediate profits, by corrupt, bought-and-paid-for politicians out to feather their own nests and to blazes with the rest of us.
Leave Sealaska "in the box" and get more logging
Sealaska just does huge rapacious clearcuts so if you leave them 'in the box' they will log the whole place end to end . If you leave the areas outside the box to the small communities they will log them smarter and more sustainably.
That way inside and outside the box gets cut = more logging.
But in fact smarter logging because it's taking other values into effect.
You get more trees cut by leaving things alone and holding Sealaska to the deal that they made in 1975.
End of story. Go away Murkowski.
@ccairnes I respect your
@ccairnes
I respect your feelings about having the land taken from you. but the legislation outlines that Sealaska has to honor its own legislation and grant access to you.
If this were not the case, I would agree with you. If the legislation passes, your continued access will be protected by law- it can not be changed.
Also, certain areas will be logged with the selective harvest model; not clear cut. Also, as mentioned by the Senator, not all areas are currently open to the public-Sealsaka's legislation will do just that-open closed areas to everyone; not just shareholders.
@ Rodarno: This legislation
@ Rodarno:
This legislation is about conservation of existing watersheds and Sealaska being able to select outside of withdrawal areas to log in areas that were previously logged by the two pulp mills that had 50 year contracts, as well as the US Forest Service and other, smaller operations.
This bill promotes the continuation of sustainable logging in the Southeast, protecting over 400 jobs and creating new ones that are directly associated with logging.
Lisa....
.... is on the ropes. If she wasn't, she would never stoop to writing crap like this to try to convince the "little people".
She really thinks she can convince the public to get behind this Sealaska scam on the power of her word. How arrogant.
She has as much horsepower and charisma as her daddio, (which was 0). Same old lies, all over again.
ANCSA 17(b) .....
.... does not give access to native land. In fact, it forbids access without permission. The access "corridors" under ANCSA 17(b) are only to CROSS native land to get to public land on the other side. You cannot hunt, fish, camp or "recreate" while in transit across the ANCSA corridors.
Sounds like really free public access to me, Lisa.
Sealaska made a deal in 1975
It was their deal. Now they want to break it and step on everybody else.
Murkowski keeps hiding the ball on the access language.
Moot point because a deal is a deal at least if you are dealing with honorable people.
B.S.
I ran our lovely republican Senator's letter through the B.S. translator and here's what it spit out:
Since I slept through the republican primary, and since Sealaska secured the Native vote for me so I kept my Senate seat, it's only fitting that I reward the Board members of Sealaska with whatever they want; even if it's the primest of the prime areas of the Tongass. The public won't notice if I sprinkle enough sugar on everything. Pleasing the Sealaska Board is more important to me than a handful of southeast Alaska constituents. The smoke will blow over once it's all done. At least Begich knows to distance himself from this hot potato. I wonder if I can win reelection if this passes? Oh well, I'll think about that in six years. Hell, maybe Goldbelt would like some new rain forests too...
Jo MacNamara............
........... I gotta get me one of them BS translator machines!
IT's racist to reference "the Native vote" or any other bloc
of people of color. It's also racist to imply that if a candidate won when the majority of white people voted against that candidate that it somehow invalidates that candidates victory. There's no reason the votes of white people should count for more than the votes of everybody else. They don't even think like you in Mississippi anymore.
And I say that as a person who doesn't have a strong opinion on the Sealaska bill.
Its a refreshing Letter from
Its a refreshing Letter from a qualified leader who does her best for Alaskans. Her voice of reason, and others like hers will be deciding on the legislation. We need to move forward on facts and positive productive dialogue. Again, thanks for clearing up the facts Senator.
Agreed Ken. The term Native
Agreed Ken. The term Native vote implies we all vote the same; we dont. I know plenty of Native people who didnt vote for her -thats not to say I didnt know a lot who did. My point is, we dont all "think" alike. Such observations are racial stereotyping.
Paraphrasing the Dalai lama:
Paraphrasing the Dalai lama: When I look at a person, I only see a human, just like me.
WE are .............
........... all "US", now! Just like Pogo said, "I have seen the enemy and he is us ."
Sealaska also refers to the native vote
Yes, it does make me cringe when Natives are all lumped together for the convenience.
Sealaska does this as well. If you look on their website under past enewsletters you'll see exhortations to Get Out The Native Vote. I'm sure we'll see a similar push when Senator Kookesh is forced to run against Senator Stedman, as evident by the posting on the Sealaska FB page.
I did not vote for Senator Murkowski.
Who cares if public access is
Who cares if public access is provided...are you required to provide public access on your private property? I think that provision goes above and beyond what should be required, and people are still complaining! It is obvious that the people against this bill are not just against Sealaska selecting outside of the boxes. They are against Sealaska getting ANYTHING. Because selecting outside of the boxes obviously provides a better deal in terms of what everyone here is complaining about. It provides more access to hunters and subsistence users than if Sealaska were to stay inside the boxes. It selects 17,000 acres of old growth in comparison to the 63,000 if they were stay inside the boxes. So explain why this is bad again IN COMPARISON to if they were to select inside the boxes?
Yes AK Native its surprising
Yes AK Native its surprising how many still complain no matter how generous the accessibility is. I have come to understand that its really not about access or hunting and fishing, but that certain interest groups just dont want the bill passed, and those arguments are the vehicles to that achieving that means. But your right... do the simple math and it doesn't add up.
I dont think Kenb41 was
I dont think Kenb41 was deliberately being racist... but what he was addressing is ongoing insensitivity-which is what his point is about.
"Person of color" has been a euphemism for quite a long time- its a bit of a stretch to say its racist, and is more or less subjective. But I would agree that "Native vote" could be looked at the same way. However, the context in which he was pointing it out was indeed meant in a demeaning way.
As you say humanbeing, its not so much what your saying but HOW you say it. There is indeed such a thing as the Native Vote... but when you say it with contempt and hostility, the intentions are manifest.
humanbeing .......
..... can you please decypher this for me:
"Thank you kpawsuh, you too zerocute......sincerely!
It's just a bit hypocritical to let that tiny little bit of animosity for another race slip past your lips as you denouce the very same treatment aimed in your assumed direction, don't you think?
Get past all that and discus the subject at hand so we can hear what you are saying, NOT how you are saying it."
I've read it over a couple of times and can't make anything out of it. What "little bit of animosity", and what "assumed direction"?????
I guess you missed zerocuts
@ Human being: I guess you missed zerocuts obscene commentary about bodily functions, lewd oral imagery, and referencing me to male genetals. I have since ignored his over the top posts that are well off the trail of any civil discussion and have contacted The Empire and advised them of his inappropriate behavior that is clearly in violation of their ground rules. Ive done my share of arguing and I have decided to move on from zerocut and undergrounds posts and not respond to maladjusted abuses. Lets be consistent when we are judgmental in the actions and words of others humanbeing; not pick and choose.
being human....
Being human, you forgot 'white trash', skin head....better yet, remove your veiled predjudice from this discussion or redirect yourself to A SOLUTION. Here's the problem: southeast Alaska is suffering economically, evident by declines in our population. Fisheries and tourism have proven that they alone cannot sustain our economy. With this comes a smaller voice at government level. The bill offers solution through over 210 jobs using our renewable natural resource; renewable 4 times faster due to the silvaculture practices, and even pruning for our deer. You don't like this, don't attack people or their color, attack the problem with an alternate solution that'll get us some jobs. Perhaps you'd like to solicit carbon credits? I'm for the bill. I'm so inclined to roll up my sleeves to create an alternate solution. If I were, I'd be contacting SEACC, and other environmental groups to redirect their funding to carbon credits. There's got to be some other economic ideas out there; send solutions to our elected officials.