Sealaska speaks up about proposed land bill S881

The tribal corporation Sealaska held a press conference February 12 regarding their proposed bill S881. Discussed were the results of their Southeast Alaska Values & Beliefs Annotated Questionnaire, as well as the brewing controversy surrounding the bill.

The tribal corporation Sealaska held a press conference February 12 regarding their proposed bill S881. Discussed were the results of their Southeast Alaska Values & Beliefs Annotated Questionnaire, as well as the brewing controversy surrounding the bill.

President and CEO Chris McNeil also discussed the history behind the legislation, which is attempting to finalize the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act [ANSCA] by awarding approximately 70,000 acres to the corporation outside of the originally proposed withdraw area.

“The original ANCSA withdraws demonstrated a lack of understanding of the geography of the region, and a series of later congressional actions further undermined the quality of lands that were available for selection by Sealaska,” said board member Brian Mallot in his testimony to the Senate Subcommittee on Public Lands and Forest.

The bill recently came to public attention following the remarks of Senator Albert Kookesh to the city of Craig. The senator, also a board president for Sealaska, suggested that Craig’s funding could be put into jeopardy if they chose not to support the bill. The same complaint came against Kookesh from a member of the Sitka Assembly following Craig’s incident.

The incident demonstrated the political sensitivity that follows a conflict of interest such as those encountered by Kookesh in dealing with his constituents in the Southeast.

However, S881 has long been a topic of controversy to those who stand to be directly affected. For the areas whose forests stand to be logged in the wake of the bill potentially passing through the legislator, spokespersons attest that the bill threatens economic stability and land management efforts.

The Deputy Under Secretary for Forestry to the US Department of Agriculture (USDA), Jay Jenson stated, “We have a number of concerns regarding the potential consequences these selections would have on USDA’s efforts to develop a long term, sustainable plan for supporting a diversity of economic opportunities for Alaskan communities and Native Alaskans.”

Jenson also expressed concern that “S881 would provide an impetus for other regional corporations to reopen land claims at this critical final stage in the land transfer program.”

To name a few of the ways the bill is causing a stir within the region: Thorne Bay passed two resolutions opposing the bill, Craig composed a letter to Senator Lisa Murkowski presenting it’s concerns, Petersburg’s city council was advised of it’s potentially far reaching effects.

“We have tried to meet with those communities to try to craft resolutions or solutions,” said vice-president of Sealaska Rick Harris. “We will also go back and revisit with the city of Thorne Bay. We also have letters of support from Coffman Cove.”

In hopes of coming to a clarification on what the communities of Southeast wanted, Sealaska commissioned the questionnaire from an independent opinion research and consultant company.

The survey most strongly reveals that Southeast is highly concerned with economic stability and growth, and would like to see natural resources managed in a sustainable and economically beneficial way.

The specifics of S881 were not necessarily addressed by the survey.

“[It] demonstrates that the priorities of the communities are aligned with the benefits of the Sealaska land entitlement legislation,” said McNeil.

For the estimated 200 residents of Edna Bay, Point Protection, and Point Baker who have been attempting to contact their legislator since 2003, the bill is an ominous threat to their ability to both subsist off their land and maintain their small economies based in recreational tourism.

Under S881 as it is currently proposed, the three villages located on Prince of Wales (POW) would be surrounded by privately owned forest intended for logging and timber sales.

In response to Edna Bay’s concerns, community member Myla Poelstra recalled that Sealaka came in 2004 and 2007 to present a brief power point about the goals of the legislation. “They came late, left early, and we never heard from them again,” said Poelstra. “No one is against Sealaska completing their land conveyances,” she added.

Instead, her and others are worried about the ramifications of losing Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA) protection, the loss of subsistence lifestyles, US Forest Service land management regulations and protections, access to the public road system established in the proposed withdraw area, and privately regulated logging practices impacts upon the forest.

“Sealaska’s selection on Kosciusko is the largest of their proposed economic development lands, almost 32,000 acres…these are the same public lands the community of Edna Bay has depended on for its life support for almost 30 years. If they are transferred into private land they will collapse our local economy,” wrote Poelstra in a letter to the editor published in the Petersburg Pilot.

“There’s no impact,” said Sealaska CEO Chris McNeil when asked to address the worries of the POW villages.

Read the complete story at the Wrangell Sentinel.