Senators Lisa Murkowski and Mark Begich have introduced S. 340 in the U.S. Senate to finalize Sealaska’s land selections from within the Tongass National Forest as intended by the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act of 1971. Representative Don Young has introduced similar legislation in the U.S. House. We are seeking broad public support for these bills as the most balanced economic, cultural and environmental solution to resolving a 42-year-old congressional promise to Southeast Natives and the public.
There was robust public dialogue related to the different land legislation versions proposed in the last Congress. While no land bills advanced in the last Congress, Alaska’s delegation was highly engaged in developing modifications and solutions in response to the ideas and concerns posed by the public and numerous interest groups. The result is highly evolved new legislation that includes more than 100 significant revisions.
Some public debate continues around the merits of the former legislation, initiated primarily by a small group that seeks to incite fear or even anger about any land settlement for Alaska Natives. Arguments that put Natives back in their box and restrict land selections to the 1975 or 2008 models are irresponsible and are by no means comprehensive, balanced solutions. Please excuse the metaphor—by thinking outside the box, this new legislation addresses the economic, cultural and environmental priorities of responsible stakeholders today.
Sealaska was the only regional ANCSA institution that was restricted to highly limited withdrawal boxes due to the then-existing long-term timber contracts. This imperfect approach that was developed in the 70s included as options high value public lands such as community watersheds and valuable recreation and subsistence areas such as the Situk River corridor, a river with exceptional fishing and wildlife values. While these sensitive areas were all available for selection by Sealaska, they are better suited for public ownership.
The current bills under consideration allow Congress to fulfill promises made to Alaska Natives and the public while resolving the discrepancy between 1970s priorities and the real issues of today. In addition to eliminating Sealaska’s selection rights to high value public and environmentally sensitive areas like intact old growth reserves and roadless areas, the Senate bill includes more than 150,000 acres of newly designated conservation lands, an area of land that is two times the number of acres that Sealaska is receiving. These new conservation lands will be added to the 87% of the Tongass already in conservation designations.
Once the bill is passed, Sealaska will continue to contribute to the region’s delicate economy through the most responsible management of timberlands, many of which are second growth areas. We will regain ownership of some of the most sacred places and are working toward co-management of these sites with the relevant tribes to honor their sacred association. Unprecedented access is guaranteed for the public to Sealaska land selections for the purposes of recreation, subsistence gathering and education.
Alaska Native people value balance and this fact remains as true today as it was in the 1970s and ten thousand years ago. We want nothing more than to continue to thrive in our homelands and we remain committed to strengthening our culture, communities and the environment. This land legislation honors the intent of ANCSA, our Native values and the best interest of the public. Please support its passage and help strengthen the Tongass for us all.
• Antioquia is Tlingit Nation-Eagle Tribe, Tsaagweidí (Killerwhale) clan and a tribal member shareholder of Sealaska and Goldbelt, Inc.
Comments (35)
Add commentSo what's changed?
Still cherry picking every sweet cove and anchorage in the region for private lodge development? Still grabbing for a 25 foot wide by 50 mile long strip of coast all the way up to Yakutat?
Yeah, I thought so. Land that we all own now collectively would have No Trespassing signs on it.
Remember Lat
The Tongass has already been picked over pretty thoroughly before Sealaska came to be... Seems like the best cherry picking was done by the Boroughs, State, Fed's, Environmentalist, miners.
In reality, Sealaska is sifting the dregs to find a decent parcel.
New bill is worth a read
@Lat - actually the bill no longer seeks rights-of-way for the cultural trails, including from Dry Bay to Yakutat. Now it simply names three culturally significant travel corridors, which will remain as federal public lands.
There are other significant improvements in the revised bill (in my opinion). Our Alaska Congressional delegation deserves recognition for working hard to amend this legislation to address concerns of their Alaskan constituents while still fulfilling Sealaska's remaining land entitlements.
It's impossible to satisfy everybody, but I'm satisfied that the revised bill strikes a reasonable balance.
personally profiting from it?
What Sealaska calls, "continuation of economic development", is at the terrible cost of native communities, their socioeconomic vitality and their cultural identities and traditions according to decades of peer reviewed research by ethnologists, sociologists, and anthropologists studying the role of ANCSA's corporate model in southeast Alaska.
History speaks for itself, as we see social scientists documenting cause/ effect relationships of ANCSA's legacy of its terrible impacts on native villages. These villages have the highest rates of domestic abuse, suicides, rape, unemployment, and are direct consequences of native corporate practices failing to achieve sustainable economies and functional village dynamics. The Sealaska bill simply allows this to occur on areas never agreed upon and it is no surprise there is much conflict over this outrageous bill.
ANCSA has re-created native village life into those who have plenty and those who have very little and force marginal families with limited access to subsistence resources out of villages. This was never the way it was for thousands of years in Raven House.
ANCSA was supposed to create economic prosperity for all, but instead, it created economic prosperity for a relative few.
This is precisely why thousands of Tlingits, Haidas, and Tsimshian shareholders are against this bill: it represents a continuation of the same tragic failures of the past.
Dr. Kirk Dombowski sums this up in his dissertation, "Against Culture: Development, Politics, and Religion in Indian Alaska"- "Alaska natives having borne the brunt of hundreds of years of colonial extraction, have been placed at the margins of the Western world and have borne a particularly heavy portion of the burden of reproducing Western culture."
The bill is morally indefensible, people don't understand or are personally profiting from it. SSU
Todd Antioquia as Director of Sealaska Corporate Communications falls into the latter category.
public vs corporate
Fluetsch - aside from mining claims, the rest of the land holders on your list represent public entities, hold the land in public trust of some sort. Sealaska is a private corporation. Do I need to educate you on the difference between public and private now?
you_know - thanks, I will look at it. Glad to hear that our delegation has been listening to our concerns and not just trotting out the same bill again. But count me as a skeptic until proven wrong - there was a lot to not like about the previous version.
Comments/questions
So does honoring the ancient associations mean that the old growth will be harvested on a sustainable yield basis?
Are the vast clearcuts in Hoonah related to these ancient associations, and can we expect more of the same?
Did SEACC get bought off so that they have now tossed the POW villages over the side?
If this is enacted will Sealaska pay US taxpayers for the logging roads they will then own that were built at huge taxpayer expense?
Will the logs be processed into lumber here in Alaska so that there is some benefit to Alaskans (as loading the logs on foreign ships at the logging camp leaves just about no money in Alaska)?
A question for Begich, Murkowski and Young; Exactly what is in this for southeast Alaskans who are not shareholders?
Lat, shame on you
you know as well as I that Sealaska is no ordinary, for profit Corporation. The land that Sealaska owns an is due represents the settlement between the United States Congress and the indigenous people of Southeast.
Sorry that the complexity of the issue taxes your mental capacity, Public vs. Private is really not the issue now is it.
Just like the lower 48, invaders cherry pick until their Christian conscience over powers the greed and they feel guilty. Not guilty enough to return the prime land they stole, the dregs of what was left.
glacierdogs
for once I agree with your comment.
now what is ment by public Lat?
While the ownership is technically the US Government, it seems that access is controlled tighter than private land. Other than walking and sitting, the public is severely restricted on utilizing that public land and its resource.
So what if the land is public, if no one can use it for anything other than sitting, walking and looking at, who cares?
Dont make me laugh
What changes? They barely moved a few borders on the large lands. They still strip mine mile after mile of the largest trees and best wildlife habitat on the Tongass.
I swear I've never heard so much BS from one special interest like the elite money grubber officers on the top end of Sealaska. Shareholders will never see a nickle all they get is ruined land. All this destruction is for the golden parachute fund.
Todd Antioquia, Sealaska's director of corporate communications
http://www.sealaska.com/page/todd_antioquia
Well there's an unbiased source. Here I thought he was just some man off the street voicing his opinion.
Aren't you supposed to reveal stuff like that when you do submissions to the empire?
What to do
So write to Begich, Murkowski and Young and ask that there be public meetings in Juneau on this legislation. The only public meeting in Juneau so far was held by Territorial Sportsmen (who gave equal time to Sealaska). CBJ Mayor Botelho held closed-door meetings with environmentalists and Sealaska, and Murkowski never should have allowed closed-door meetings on legislation as excluding the stakeholders violates the public trust. This time around we want transparency; don't expect it from Don Young of course, and Murkowski seems to avoid it but I expect Begich (with an office in Juneau) would listen to requests for public meetings.
We need people from the most impacted communities to be helped to travel to Juneau for these needed public meetings. We need the CBJ Assembly to be involved.
Maybe we need amendments to be considered in order to allow a buy-in from Southeast. Maybe sustainable yield should be considered. How about in-state manufacture of logs (it was good enough for the long-term pulp company contracts)? Maybe the land should become taxable after a certain period of time (as the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act provided that muni's could tax the land beginning in 1991 but that was taken out by Ted Stevens slightly before 1991). Why do we always only see this legislation after it is completely drafted? It's too much like the process to elect a pope; we expect more out of Murkowski, Young and Begich!
Brad,
The United States bought this land. If Russia hadn't sold it to us - all of us, including people who came from Switzerland and their descendants - then Great Britain would have perfected their claim to much of it. The rest would likely have gone to Japan one of the times they whipped Russia, and then who knows what would have happened to land owned by Japan in North America after WWII? Or maybe in owning Alaska Japan could have fought WWII to a draw. No one will ever know but in any event if Alaska had not been sold to the United States it would be owned by some other world power today. How has it gone for indigenous people on land that is part of Japan and land that is part of Russia compared with how Alaska Natives have fared under US ownership and Alaska statehood?
Here we go, Again....
This Bill still needs to DIE, a quick death, in committee. It is just slightly better than the last one. SeaAlaska needs to be held to the Contract, with the US Government, they Signed, from the Get Go, Period. NO Changes, NO Land Grabs, No Political BS, allowed. Murkie, OWES the Natives for getting her reElected. Begich, OWES the natives for HIS Election, when he just barely beat a CONVICTED Felon. I have no idea why Rep Young is backing this deal. Could it be senility, is setting in? Hard to say. My Opinion..... YMMV.....
Mark it down...
I actually agree with Glacierdogs too. So many within the tribes are also dissenting SeaAK. The myth used to go that the native american people held a special bond with the land - well, now SeaAK is raping the land for a buck, just like any other white man's corporation. Now they want fresh selections so they may continue the pillage. According to the very large group of dissenting SeaAK shareholders, SeaAK has become a "Good 'Ol Boy's" club. With both Begich & Murkowski backing this, the odds are against it not passing. Does anyone know if the Thorne Bay area is still in the cross-hairs of land SeaAK has targeted for further gutting?
Glacier
So who did the United States buy America from? Lol.
smh...
Call 911!
Geedogs and I are in 100% agreement!
I need an ambulance! Or the SWAT team!
seestumpsshareholdersunderground...........
Our future is "clear cut?"
me-plus
Your question is far afield of the Sealaska bill. When Europeans first arrived on the Eastern Seaboard they found a complex mosaic of indigenous tribes in constant warfare over land. Nonetheless, the Europeans traded goods and money for land and obtained title of a sort even as that title then often needed to be defended in war. Since the sellers had no record of their ownership the chain of ownership would not hold up to standards in law then or now. The situation is moot however since the sellers and purchasers are long deceased but those long-ago sellers would likely have been able to at least provide DNA-derived proof that they were entirely indigenous (had the science of today been available of course) whereas it's not clear that anyone could do so today.
As everyone knows, Europeans first had to settle ownership disputes among themselves, with Great Britain eventually winning in most instances and with most area. Then descendants of Europeans won independence, and thus ownership, against Great Britain, and went on to settle title disputes with Spain, Mexico, France and other claimants through purchase and war. Later the southern tier of this unit tried to gain its own independence through war but failed. Such is the history of America and of mankind. It seems that title that cannot be defended is sure to one day be lost.
Bill goes to far
I'm a Sealaska shareholder but am not sure I support the bill anymore. I think now that SEACC supports the bill we're giving up too much of our good land in the deal. Over the years, SEACC and all the other conservation groups have kept adding more and more environmental parts to the bill. Now, I think we're giving up too much.
Of course, if convicted felon Dominic Slobato is against the bill then I'm for it. Keep up the BS Dominic from Anchorage. If you cared so much for the land, you would live here and not Anchorage.
J. Johnson
Douglas, AK
Ok Glaicerdog
You must be reading a different Treaty of Cessions than the rest of us read. Which was reinforced and confirmed in the Statehood act where Alaska agreed to leave the indigenous people and land to themselves.
America stole Alaska from the Native people, but not in 1868, in 1971.
Land was given
Land was given, or designated to, Sealaska and. Thing is, they got greedy and rewrote the boundaries. All coastal areas, coves, old growth timber. If this goes through, you'll be seeing a lot of no trespassing signs.
Glacierdogs
Russia did not sell the Alaska to Uncle Sam. They sold the hunting and fishing rights to Alaska so Canada would not wind up with it. History bears this out and was the reason the Native land claims act was implemented. It was shown in court that the USA never had claim to the land. Result? Presto Problematic Alaska Natives with land.
JimmyJsuckup...........what happened?
Big turn around for jimmyjoff. Who's we? The rest of you Sealaska suckup's?
All these years of you and the delete teams and dogsalmon breath. You Jimmy Jacksooncomelately, thinks it's too much. What a rube.
Bob Claus
I respect Bob. He got pushed around by Congressman Young, because he isn't native. But neither is Don Young.
Come clean Sealaska, Murkowski, and SEACC
Stop all the spin, all the arguing, and the monumental waste of time.
Sealaska, SEACC, and Murkowski know - but never mention one crucial fact: Sealaska, as required by a legal deadline, already submitted their final selections to the BLM in June of 2008. Then they turned around and asked the BLM to hold off on finalization while they tried to work a better deal through Congress. ANCSA guaranteed land but not a huge profit. In fact, nowhere in ANCSA is there language requiring that they log their selections. And if they squandered their lands in 42 short years, then it seems to me that’s their problem. If I ran out my savings account, Uncle Sam wouldn't come to my rescue. The American taxpayer doesn’t owe them a huge profit, by allowing them to break their contract and especially considering that the Sealaska Board pockets most of revenue and the shareholders get peanuts anyway.
Seems to me an independent appraisal should be conducted on the proposed land giveaway to Sealaska. This would include all the infrastructure (roads, bridges, marine facilities), all the timber including lucrative cedar and high volume old growth that will be exported in the round, and the decades of forest planning...all bankrolled by the American taxpayer.
All this talk about how the bill is "improved" is just smoke and mirrors. Sealaska is the only one standing in the way of “resolving a 42-year-old congressional promise to Southeast Natives and the public”. This bill needs to die and SE Alaskans need to get on with their lives.
Peace
Peace to all living beings within the Tongass National Forest. May we have courage to heal the forest and sea to live in harmony once again. This has always been my prayer.
Todd's uncle was Clarence Jackson
Who recently passed away, but I'm sure it helped Todd get a job at Sealaska when your uncle is a board member, sorta like how Clarence got his niece on the Sealaska board (Jodi Mitchell), and his other niece (Gail Cheney) is the HR Director. Sealaska is just a highly compensated jobs and welfare program for the board and management. Clarence also got his son appointed to the board of Tlingit & Haida Housing Authority, which is run by Sealaska Board member Rosita Worl's son.
Sealaska should just accept the lands inside the box and quit wasting shareholder money on lobbyists and attorneys by pushing this bad bill.
landless
If this bill reads anything like the House bill sponsored by Don Young I agree with the opinion that this bill should die in committee but likely not for the same reasons.
The passage of the native claims settlement act was due in large part to the efforts of the Alaska Native Brotherhood during it's push for civil rights for the native people.
My parents were born to a world that allowed signs stating "no natives or dogs allowed". There was a consolidated push for civil reform and economic equality.
Those who forget their history are suffered to repeat it. Divide and conquer has been the policy of the U.S. Government from the onset. Push for incorporated villages and award entitlement of land and money for one village and ignore the the village 21 miles down the road. Create wealth and poverty side by side and sit back and watch the squabbling begin. Give more to the same villages that squandered and bankrupt their corporations and watch true resentment set in.
Begich and Murkowski are ignoring the plight of the landless for much of the same reason the American people as a whole are ignored. Not enough money in for them to support the efforts of the forgotten. Reform that was once decided by the will of the people is now decided by corporate interests native or otherwise.
Glacierdogs - you are wrong.
Glacierdogs - you are wrong.
First of all, they sold it to make sure Great Britain didn't take it from them - not Canada - and also to pay a large debt to Rothchilds, having borrowed 15 million pounds, sterling.
Secondly, the treaty to purchase Alaska states "all the territory" not just hunting and fishing rights.
Article I
His Majesty the Emperor of all the Russias, agrees to cede to the United States, by this convention, immediately upon the exchange of the ratifications thereof, all the territory and dominion now possessed by his said Majesty on the continent of America and in adjacent islands, the same being contained within the geographical limits herein set forth, to wit: The eastern limit is the line of demarcation between the Russian and the British possessions in North America, as established by the convention between Russia and Great Britain, of February 28—16, 1825, and described in Articles III and IV of said convention.
~ Right or wrong, it happened a long time ago and there's nothing we can do about it now - we live in the here and now and we all need to work together for what is best for all.
I don't take sides on this issue, but I will point out misinformation when I see it.