On its face, the bill is my-eyes-glaze-over routine: H.R. 2099 and companion bill S. 881 "will provide for the settlement of certain claims under the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act, and for other purposes." The bill will permit an Alaskan Native corporation, Sealaska, to complete lands selection process granted under a 1971 law. Sealaska needs the Congressional decision because it wants to choose lands outside the original boundaries of the Act. If the bill passes, Sealaska will be permitted to log 80,000 acres of the Tongass National Forest.
Or, rob our best carbon bank of 80,000 acres of carbon storage.
As background, the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act of 1971 resolved all claims of Alaskan Natives by creating 12 regional corporations, including Sealaska in the southeast. Sealaska owns 290,000 acres in Southeast Alaska, making it the largest landholder in the Juneau-Ketchikan region. The pending legislation is portrayed as tying up of loose ends by giving Sealaska certain lands not within the original 1971 law. Sealaska wants lands on the north side of Prince of Wales Island within the boundaries of the Tongass National Forest.
At first blush, this is purely an internal Alaskan story. Some local residents oppose the bill because it would make private certain public lands currently being used for subsistence living. Others opine that the bill is fair. Mudflats exposed the attitude, by one state legislator who also happens to sit on the board of the Sealaska Corporation, toward conflict of interest: "turn over the trees and no one gets hurt."
However, the land at question is currently part of the Tongass National Forest, the nation’s largest national forest. A new Wilderness Society study lists the Tongass ninth on a list of top carbon-storing national forests, or carbon banks. The thick, wet forests of the Pacific Northwest, including the Tongass, store 1 1/2 times as much carbon as the entire amount of carbon dioxide burned in fossil fuels throughout the country each year. Old, wet cool temperature forests such as the Tongass top even the tropical forests of Indonesia and Brazil for storing carbon.
Timber harvesting has been the cornerstone of Sealaska’s economic enterprise. Sealaska’s wholly owned subsidiary, Sealaska Timber, boasts that it’s the largest timber supplier in Alaska and North America’s seventh largest exporter of timber (in other words, its wood is shipped overseas). Although Sealaska portrays S. 881 as a struggle to obtain a small fraction of Native lands, residents are convinced that Sealaska will log whatever land it gets from S. 881. Once land is transferred out of the Tongass National Forest to Sealaska, it’s no longer part of any forest management plan (or national politics of same) and its trees can be harvested at will.
The Wilderness Society asks for action to oppose S. 881 and H.R. 2099. The House Natural Resources Committee will hold a hearing next Wednesday, March 17.
The need to do right by Alaskan Natives needs to be balanced against the need to do right by the planet. Rather than a simple no vote, Congress could consider the concept of reducing emissions from deforestation and degradation (REDD) in the bill. If we’re willing to consider paying Indonesia and Brazil not to cut down their tropical forests, perhaps a similar solution for any land transferred to Sealaska can be found close to home? The Wilderness Society believes that the economic realities in the Tongass work in favor of conservation, recreation, and carbon sequestration, and against logging. Or, as any Goldman Sachs banker knows, it’s better to keep assets in the bank than to give away parts of the bank to a raider.



15 Comments







Ai yai yaiii…. what a truly scary possibility!
Do you have any intuition or hunch about whether or not any Palins are involved with Sealaska?
HR 2099 ; Patrick Kennedy,WTF?
S 881 ; what is up with Hawaii’s Senators?
As far as I can tell, all 12 (or 13) of the Alaska Native corporations are very well connected to all politicians in Alaska. If there’s corruption, it’s not localized to the Palin.
Thanks for pointing out this issue.
You said:
As far as I can tell, all 12 (or 13) of the Alaska Native corporations are very well connected to all politicians in Alaska. If there’s corruption, it’s not localized to the Palin.
Allow me if you will:
As far as I can tell,all 12 (or 13) of the Alaska Native corporations are very well connected toallpoliticiansin Alaska.Ifthere’s corruption, it’s not localized tothe Palin.AlaskaAn introduction to the “Alaska Native Regional Corporations” may be found at wikipedia. LINK:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alaska_Native_Regional_Corporations
An example of the reach of the Alaska Native Regional Corporations into areas ‘non-traditional’ may be found in an article by
Ed O’Keefe in the Washington Post : “No-Bid Contracts to Alaska Native Corporations Raise Eyebrows” dated July 16, 2009. LINK:
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/federal-eye/2009/07/lawmakers_cast_a_critical_eye.html
Two excerpts from O’Keefe’s article:
“Alaska Native Corporations have scored billions of dollars in no-bid government contracts in the last decade, leading lawmakers to suggest Thursday that the firms, created to provide economic benefits to Alaska’s native populations, have exploited a loophole at the expense of taxpayers nationwide.
At issue is an ANC’s ability to receive contracts of any size from a federal agency as part of a Small Business Administration program for minority and disadvantaged small businesses.
Government investigations and news reports have exposed how companies take advantage of the unique benefit, often winning large contracts with the departments of Defense or Homeland Security, and sometimes creating complex business partnerships with firms that have no ties to the SBA program or Alaska.”
Like many other ‘issues’ the trend between the years 200 and 2008 is clear.
Again from O’Keefe’s article (which should be read in full at the provided link):
“No-bid contracts awarded to ANCs ballooned from $508.4 million in 2000 to $5.2 billion in 2008, according to an analysis of the 19 largest ANCs prepared by McCaskill’s staff. Despite the earnings, ANCs pay only roughly $615 each per year in benefits to the 130,000 Alaska Natives who are company shareholders. The report also suggests that Alaska Natives have not enjoyed enough of the revenues, since approximately 5 percent of ANC employees are Alaska Natives and most executive compensation is earned by managers who are not Alaska Natives.”
While I question the need for logging the Tongass- or for that matter transferring ownership of the land; I’m not sure that this is what Goldman Sachs bankers think:
Or, as any Goldman Sachs banker knows, it’s better to keep assets in the bank than to give away parts of the bank to a raider.
My understanding is that they profit by taking a percentage of the deal. Trees in National Forest on land owned by the U.S. government (in trust for current and FUTURE citizens) not being logged = 0% of nothing.
Karen M @ 1:
“Do you have any intuition or hunch about whether or not any Palins are involved with Sealaska?”
See information about Todd’s ‘affiliation’ with ‘his’ ANRC (Bristol Bay Native Corporation) here LINK:
http://64.38.12.138/News/2010/018492.asp
From that site:
“Tripp is a member of the Curyung Tribe and receives services at the Alaska Native Medical Center in Anchorage, attorneys for his mother Bristol Palin said. The boy’s father, Levi Johnston, has never paid for health care or for insurance, the attorneys said.”
Also from Indianz.com link above:
“Sarah Palin’s husband is Todd Palin, who is Alaska Native. Todd Palin and some of his children are shareholders in the Bristol Bay Native Corporation, an Alaska Native regional corporation. Tripp Palin is presumably eligible to become a shareholder in the corporation.”
Other ‘involvement’ by the Palins in Sealaska is a separate issue not addressed here.
BTW: The class action being settled requiring this bill was Cobell v. Salazar.
Thanks for writing this article. Some of the Alaska bloggers have written about it for AK consumption. Few people know about it there, let alone in the Lower 48. Were it not for Sen. Kookesh’s faux pas a few weeks ago, even less would know about another great Alaska heist.
Also – the author tag on your name tied to the article’s title is messed up – goes nowhere.
I think the Alaska Native Corporations need to be re-organized to put most of the income into the hands of natives – and I mean at least 1/8th, not the only-technically-native types like La Palin’s grandbaby. (Even the Civilized Tribes drew a line on their rolls, beyond which people don’t qualify.)
What else might be there Sealaska after they cut the trees might sell the land to miners or oil drillers?
Oh wait I’m sure that Sealaska would never do anything like that is what Congress will tell voters..
It’s heartbreaking
Seems nothing is safe or sacred with this majority Rep Congress. Next up…sperm banks will be the target!
Swopa is upstairs!
Meet the New Iraqi Government Coalition, (Probably) the Same As the Old Coalition
Thanks RL. Anyone know to whom the lumber is being sold? I thought the price of lumber had gone south along with the economy.
Much of it is exported as whole logs. That means the jobs are shipped out with the raw logs.
See this story By Mark Rorick dated Dec 30, 2009 at the Juneau Empire .com. LINK:
http://www.juneauempire.com/stories/123009/opi_541037200.shtml
An excerpt:
“The Tongass’s roadless areas also were big tree high graded by past logging. For example, of the three volume per acre classes of Tongass timber, number one being the highest volume and number three being the least volume, 70 percent of the class one and two have been clear-cut. The logged areas were also the most accessible and therefore even more profitable. What is left is much less economic.
This high grading is in part why the Tongass timber program has become the most heavily subsidized program in the national forest system, receiving as much as $300,000 per direct timber job. The bad economics also is why the U.S. Forest Service is allowing 50 percent or more of cut trees to be exported out of state without any local processing. Asia is willing to pay more for Alaska’s logged old-growth trees than our nation is.”
As to the price of lumber being down- the economics speak for themselves.
The subsidies will ensure that it will be cut to the taxpayer’s and environments loss.
If you are truly concerned about “carbon banks” as the title and some of the content of this blog purports, then you would be in favor of this legislation. Sealaska is purposing to exchange roadless areas for logging for previously logged areas with existing roads. This is from Native leader Chris McNeil, the CEO of Sealaska.
If anyone is interested in why Indians would log in the first place, I provide my personal reasons here.
Morgan Howard
Mr. Howard,
As a resident of Edna Bay, one of the 3 communities most affected by this bill, the major reason that these bills are bad is that the lives of the residents of our 3 towns were not adequately taken into consideration. The environmentalists may have their own ax to grind – but we residents of these towns are not hostile to Sealaska nor our native neighbors, we wish to see them live and prosper equally beside us.
Our towns will be cut-off from the now-public lands that we need to survive. We are not asking Sealaska to ignore their own survival, just to find another way that doesn’t threaten ours. We depend on these lands, we cannot afford to travel to the lands that Sealaska is offering to swap in exchange. If these bills pass it will effectively be the end of any future for our communities. We want to be partners and friends with our Native neighbors, please don’t support these bills that are putting us at odds with each other – instead go back and begin crafting a better bill that gives Sealaska what it is entitled to without threatening our communities – otherwise I fear that this issue will divide Southeast Alaska along Native/Non-native lines; and that would be a future that benefits nobody.