I’ve got to admit that I’m somewhat befuddled by the dustup over our Congressional delegation’s attempts to bring closure to the four decades long struggle that Sealaska has been engaged in to finalize the land selections awarded to the corporation under the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (ANSCA).
The basic policy of ANSCA, as stated in the Act, seems to pretty clear to me, as the purposes section of the law states: “The settlement shall be accomplished rapidly, with certainty, and in conformity with the real economic and social needs of Natives, without litigation, with maximum participation by Natives in decisions affecting their rights and property….”
My guess is that if you asked a Sealaska shareholder if this Congressional promise embodied in ANSCA has been fully realized, the answer would be a resounding “no!”
I suspect what makes this unfulfilled promise even more disturbing is that Sealaska — in my view—got short-sheeted in ANSCA in its original land selection base due to existing federal commitments in 1971 such as the pulp mills’ long-term timber contracts.
So from the get-go, Sealaska was seriously hamstrung in what lands it could select in Southeast and in the total acreage available for the corporation’s selection base.
To show how out of kilter the ANSCA treatment of Sealaska is, a review of the existing land base in the Tongass National Forest may be instructive.
The Tongass is roughly 16.8 million acres in size. About 5.7 million acres are designated as federal wilderness. Another 9.5 million acres are protected by the U.S. Forest Service’s plan for managing the Tongass.
Finally, according to Forest Service data, the amount of the Tongass available for what it terms “potential development” is 655,000 acres. If you believe that much “development” will ever occur on these lands, I’ve got a bridge to nowhere that I’d like to sell you.
The simple fact is that the Tongass is, in effect, one big national preserve with minimal amounts of private lands.
Sealaska has roughly 85,000 additional acres left to select (which is less that one-half of percent to the Tongass land area), but has been hemmed in by ANSCA’s requirement that the corporation select its entitlement from 10 specific areas in Southeast.
Our Congressional delegation’s legislation to amend ANSCA would give Sealaska the legal right to select a limited amount of land from outside of the 1aw’s specific selection boundaries.
Frankly, I hope the legislation passes, for several reasons.
First, ANSCA has been amended at least 18 times since it was originally passed in 1971, so amending the Act to accommodate Sealaska’s request for new selection rights sets no new precedent.
Concern has been expressed that amending Sealaska’s entitlement will somehow open up ANCSA to a clamor from other Native regional corporations to modify their original entitlements.
The Forest Service has trotted out this specious argument as one reason why Sealaska’s proposal should not pass Congress. Good grief, the agency already controls a vast swath of the Tongass, how much is enough?
Also, as anyone who has lived in Southeast knows, privately-owned land in the Tongass is a rarity. I can understand those who value public lands that are basically closed to development in the Tongass, but my question to them is the same question as I would ask the Forest Service in its efforts to beat back the Sealaska initiative: How much is enough?
To me at least, the pivotal question is fair treatment of Southeast’s first Alaskans, Sealaska and its shareholders.
Finally, I believe that it’s time to bring this long-standing injustice to an end.
To be candid, I’d much rather have the relatively small amount of the Tongass involved in the Sealaska legislative initiative in the hands of the Alaskans who originally inhabited Southeast than in some D.C.-based bureaucracy that is largely tone deaf when it comes to responding the concerns of Alaskans.
Isn’t it time to bring fairness and closure to this issue? I believe that it is.
• Reinwand was Gov. Jay Hammond’s top aide during his second term and served in the same position for then-Sen. Frank Murkowski in the senator’s Washington, D.C., office. Reinwand also served as the first Deputy Comissioner of the Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation. He has no business or personal ties to Sealaska.
Comments (23)
Add commentWhere's this guy been?
If this guy wants to do Natives a favor get Sealaska to accept Term Limits, drop Discretionary Voting and demand the resignations of board members and employees responsible for the destruction at Hoonah and Kake.
After 200 thousand acres of clear cutting shareholders received next to nothing, what is another 80 thousand acres suppose to do for us?
sealaska
Shouldn't that head line read "perpetual"?
This guy could not be more wrong.
Whine, whine, whine.
First, not all Alaskans support amending ANCSA. I don't. I am in the majority.
Secondly, the first people who occupied this land are long since dead. Let's pass legislation that benefits the living, not the dead. The ancestry card is getting old.
Third, Sealaska had their chance to finalize their land selection, but they got greedy and wanted land outside of the boxes. This is the reason they haven't received the lands they are 'entitled' to.
If Sealaska would choose the lands inside the original ANCSA boxes, this would not be an issue, and we could put it to bed forever. But Sealaska has a reputation for greed and for disservice to its shareholders and to southeast Alaskans.
It's all about greed, not Native rights.
And it's all about "land for votes" back room deals made by our wonderful republipuke Senator to gain re-election. Promise them anything.
Let's come up with a Tongass land plan that benefits ALL Alaskans, not just some.
And after 40 years, you'd think Sealaska would just throw in the towel. They should.
p.s.
What is a "perpectual" battle?
I wouldn't take so much issue
I wouldn't take so much issue with the land bill if it didn't allow so much cherry picking by Sealaska.
A beach-front strip 25 feet wide and 50 MILES long? Come ON!
Nearly every prime anchorage, tourist attraction, energy site in the region, under the guise of 'heritage sites'? I don't think so.
If Sealaska wasn't demonstrating extreme avarice I might be more sympathetic to them. But they're a corporation, so I guess they feel it's their fiduciary duty to screw the rest of Alaskans.
Less befuddled
I'm always somewhat befuddled by these random individuals who come out in favor of this divisive legislation and spew forth the usual nonsense about the Tongass being 16 million acres so maybe it won't hurt to totally trash a few old growth forests there and there along with the nonsense about this being an issue of historical justice when everybody knows that the timber business loses money after all the payments to the corporate officers and to lobbyists while the shareholders get a few token scraps.
Mr. Reinwand's biographical information fails to mention that he is a corporate lobbyist, including for the Alaska Timber Insurance Exchange. He has also been a major contributor to Senator Murkowski's political campaigns.
Aha - another timber industry bailout advocate - I'm somewhat less befuddled now.
And here come the Trolls....
And here come the Trolls.... With Jo MacNamara in the lead....
Not all acreage the same
qcgshk - as you point out, all the acreage of Tongass forest is not the same. There are swamp areas, areas clear cut in the past, new growth, and finally the most valuable of all - the old growth trees. With their size, tight grain, and quality, the old trees are most valuable in the Asian market to produce musical instruments and other high value products. It has been these large, old trees that the Native corporations have been selling in the round to the Far East.
The old growth forest is a special ecosystem with a canopy of cover that shelters deer and other animals in the winter, it has its special plants and other features. But once clear cut, it would take hundreds of years, many generations of Alaskans before it would be restored. What is left now should be preserved for future generations and let them decided what to do with their heritage.
Let the logging firms log the areas that were clear cut forty to sixty years ago and prohibit the cutting of any more of the old growth forest. That's my personal opinion.
Why the boxes?What's YOUR idea?You are NOT majority.Nonsense?
Jo MacNamara, Why were there boxes to select from for this region, and not the other regional corporations upon making their land selections? Answer in paragraph 4. The boxes are not an issue anymore.
What is YOUR idea that benefits all Alaskans? Right now southeast Alaska is shrinking due to our high unemployment. Spring/Summer Tourism jobs, and also seasonal commercial fisheries alone IS NOT solving this. Help with some constructive solutions.
You are NOT the majority for feeling the way you do. This has been proven by our historical vote, and the growing list of supporters of the bills through resolutions, and letters from our neighbors in/around our Tongass.
Qcgshk, Nonsense? What is nonsense? The facts? If the facts reflected in this editorial are nonsense, then prove your allegation by proving they are not facts.
Here's the real befuddlement
Sealaska already selected the remaining lands to which it is entitled, on June 10 2008 in accordance with Section 403 of the Alaska Land Transfer Acceleration Act. It is the Bureau of Land Management that has been holding up the conveyance of the lawfully selected lands ever since June 10 2008 ... for some unexplained reason. Why doesn't Mr. Reinwand ask the BLM to end this incessant attempted rip-off of everybody else in the country by the largest private land owning corporation in Southeast Alaska by conveying the rest of Sealaska land today?
Another bogus piece from Sealaska
Quite frankly I'm getting tired of the falsehoods circulated by Sealaska's agents on this bill.
[Sealaska] "has been hemmed in by ANSCA’s requirement that the corporation select its entitlement from 10 specific areas in Southeast.
Sealaska went back to Congress in 1975 and specifically asked for an amendment to get their selections inside 'those 10 specific areas'. They were given exceptionally rich highly accessible timber - many billions of board feet - which they've cut unsustainably. Their legitimate original claim is on file with BLM since 2008 and can be finished out at any time - no one is standing in the way.
How about an once of concern for all the other people - public hunters, fishermen, small businessmen, communities, and yes - Sealaska shareholders - that have been run over or will be run over by this divisive fools errand?
ANCfeedback@gao.gov
SHAREHOLDERS CAN MAKE THEIR VOICES HEARD...
Thank you for this information. Please feel free to pass along this mailbox to other shareholders.
The U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) established this mailbox last week by to gather input from Alaska Native shareholders on their views on their regional corporations. GAO is part of the Legislative Branch of the federal government.
The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation, and investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance and accountability of the federal government for the American people. GAO examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and policies; and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance to help Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO’s commitment to good government is reflected in its core values of accountability, integrity, and reliability.
Specifically, we are interested in hearing about the communication between the regional corporations and their shareholders. What information do the regional corporations provide to their shareholders and do the shareholders believe that the communication is adequate? If the information is not adequate, what additional information do they believe should be provided? We would like to hear about what is working well, as well as areas that may need improvement.
As we are just beginning this study, we would be open to hearing about other general regional corporation issues as well.
Jeff Malcolm
GAO Assistant Director
"falsehoods by Sealaska agents"..?
Good: These bills do benefit the hunters: it trades old growth selections for second growth. Additionally, once the bills pass, while the land will become privately owned, the bill protects recreational, and subsistence uses. I have never seen a private land owner give the public such generousity,
This is an amendment. It's not the first amendment to ANCSA, and probably won't be the last. This is understandable considering the fact this Act was passed as swiftly as possible the the State of Alaska so they can move forward with the oil extraction business.
"ten specific areas".... That is irrelevant. The other regional corporations were NOT told to select their lands within the boxes, only Sealaska because of mill contracts. This is no longer the case, all the more reason for the amendments to ANCSA.
@062284
My idea of what would benefit ALL Alaskans, would be to keep the remainder of the Tongass in the hands of the American people and not a for-profit corporation like Sealaska.
Keep it a national forest.
Sealaska got a good deal with ANCSA. But they are greedy and want more, more, more.
And they think they can get more, when all it takes is to promise votes from their shareholders to re-elect Murkowski. And now she's not delivering. Are you surprised?
And if you live in a village which is shrinking due to high unemployment, do what I did; move to where the jobs are!
Locking up Alaskan lands
Over the decades I have heard voices saying that they don't want Alaskan lands "locked up" by the federal government, the state or local governments, but should be available for corporations, groups and individuals to buy or purchase for their own use, exploitation and control. What greater way is there to "lock up" land and areas by turning them over to individuals or groups forever??
Lock up the land? By whom? Our government and general public, or some special interest?
All I know is that when I purchased some land, that it belonged to me and no one else. It was "locked up" forever because I bought and paid for it, and no one else was to have access to it.
If land is "locked up" by a government, supposedly representing the people, is it any worse than land "locked up" by an individual that they can pass the ownership on to those whomever they want, forever?
The author states that ANCSA
The author states that ANCSA , ( not ANSCA), was amended 18 times. I don't know if this count is right , but I do know that one of those times it was amended by Sealaska , to specifically get the lands INSIDE the boxes. Why is this idea so hard for people to grasp? This land selection has taken so long to accomplish because Sealaska has stalled for so long to pick their land...(40 years). The corporation has gotten more timber already out of the acres already logged than what was originally estimated that they would get out of their total logging operation. Proof that they were not slighted on land quality. The idea that land in the hands of the government is locked up land... equating it with untouchable is ludicrous. What is untouchable is Sealaska land,... not even natives can utilize it... it is purely there for the corporation to log, use, and lose, sell if they chose. They don't have to ask the shareholders or think of the future generations. Federal land is owned by all of us... Native and non native alike. We can all use this land for subsistence, fire wood, hunting, trapping, recreation,small businesses, eco-tourism, and inspiration. The government is not an outside owner... it is US
The only good point
The only good point the writer addresses here is the fact that it has been 40 years...at the very least its been 36 years since Sealaska's President Borbridge asked for selections from 'inside' the withdrawal areas and was granted his request by Congress...leaving everyone else in Southeast Alaska to believe the selection areas were settled.
Since that time people have made investments in properties and businesses that depend on open access to the national forest lands around them to support their livelihoods.
It's too late and its been too long for Sealaska to upset the apple cart now. A deal is a deal. They need to finish the 2008 BLM selections...get on with their business...and allow the rest of Southeast Alaska to move forward.
Controversy
There is a disturbing amount of controversy surrounding this unwarranted legislation. To find out more google Tongass Lowdown.
Sealaska and the AK
Sealaska and the AK delegation would like the House of Reps and Senate to think this is not controversial legislation. Hard to think of a more controversial subject in this paper than this one. Now Senator Murkowski... knowing how unpopular this is , but being obligated to pushing it forward, will try to get this in on an lands bill where it will not have to stand on it's own merit. In stead it will pass through in a big package where committee members all have their pet legislation, This is what politics uses when they want to go around unpopular sentiment, and not have to deal with the pesky public getting in the way of their obligations.
I think Lisa's OK...
...but I will NOT vote for her due to this single issue.
She has the votes she needs...
Sealaska will provide them for her. As long as she ignores everyone's needs but theirs.
-
-
info sealaska
What is the real scoop on Sealaska choosing or having to choose outside the "box"?Sealaska reps came to Sitka a month ago and presented a update to Assembly and took public question.One thing came up via Mr.Harris about the choices the corp. would have make if they had to stick to the boxes.There's not much left,what is available is mountain tops.He even mentioned something about a choice in the Wrangell mountains.That didn't make sense to me.Can someone explain the situation?