SITKA, ALASKA
Listen to the complete program from Tuesday’s Talk of Alaska here.
Merculieff described the creation of a “Tribal Accord” that he hoped might guide congress in amending ANSCA to protect subsistence rights by restoring tribal control over lands that were handed over to Native corporations. Merculieff does not think corporate interests best serve Alaska’s Natives.
“It’s not about power. It’s about local control. All these communities throughout Alaska are facing huge challenges. They’ve got endlessly increasing costs for fuel. You’ve got climate change events that are diminishing wildlife populations and vegetation. You’ve got increasing numbers of people coming in, sports hunters and sports fishermen.”
Merculieff said he was not opposed to sports hunting and fishing. Instead, he argued that the privatization of traditional Native lands had severed the cultural patterns that had sustained the state’s indigenous populations for millennia.
He said the land was “our basis for survival,” and he thought corporate ownership put the land at risk.
“It’s possible that some of our corporations could go bankrupt. And it’s possible that creditors – if they don’t go into reorganization – will attach the assets. The main assets of these corporations, besides any investments they may have accrued, is the land. So, it’s vulnerable there. And they can outright sell it, cause this is fee-simple title land. They can do with it whatever they want. As I understand it there have been some corporations that have actually sold parts of their land.”
The risks of privatizing traditional lands – even by the Native corporations established under ANCSA – have fueled the debate over the bill now in congress that would finalize Sealaska Inc’s land selections in Southeast. H.R. 1408 and its senate counterpart, S. 730 would convey about 85,000 acres of Tongass National Forest land to Sealaska.
The legislation, which is currently drafted to allow the corporation to select timberlands and cultural sites outside of the original ANSCA boundaries, has sparked many contentious public hearings in the region. It was almost inevitable that the Sealaska bill would enter this conversation. The call came from Point Baker, on northern Prince of Wales Island.
“So there’s a big rebellion in Southeast Alaska. Many Natives are opposed to the bill. In Hoonah, they destroyed the whole area by logging 12 miles. Just look at Hoonah’s legacy. In Sitka, there’s an uproar. The city council is not at all happy that Sealaska wants Redoubt Bay. On Prince of Wales Island, there are nine towns that were opposed to Sealaska getting selections in the best remaining old growth forest,” said a resident identified as Alan.
Merculieff would not speak directly to the merits of the Sealaska bill. The type of changes he’s he’s hoping to bring about in ANSCA are not in the details. They are structural.
“What we’re calling for are solutions that allow local control and self-determination, and the ability to access our customarily- and traditionally-used lands, and traditional ways of managing and accessing fish and wildlife habitat.”
There’s no consensus about the Tribal Accord. While many of the state’s 229 tribes were at the Anchorage summit, critics complained that there was little corporate representation.
In congress, Alaska’s representative Don Young considers the Tribal Accord a threat to ANSCA, and to forty years of success.
“I’ve spent too much time working with Alaska’s Native corporations, Alaska’s village corporations, to have that program destroyed. It was the finest settlement we’ve ever had, and it worked.”
Over the next several months, member stations of the Alaska Public Radio Network will continue to explore facets of the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act on its fortieth anniversary, with regional perspective from around the state.
This report was prepared with help from APRN’s Lori Townsend and Libby Casey.
© Copyright 1970, Raven Radio Foundation Inc.
