Petersburg Pilot

SE Alaskans divided

over Sealaska Lands Bill

Keith Chaplin

March 18, 2010

In front of a packed Petersburg city council chamber Friday, Mar. 12, southeast Alaskan residents took to the podium to state their opinions of S.881, the divisive Sealaska Corp. Lands Bill.

Residents of Mitkof, Kupreanof and Prince of Wales Island attended the hearing; almost 30 of who gave comments and suggestions to Charles “Chuck” Kleeschulte, a staff member for U.S. Senator Lisa Murkowski’s Committee on Energy and Natural Resources who was in town to document testimony.

Of those giving testimony, the split of those in support and those against was almost completely equal.

Kleeschulte took notes, video, and made clarifications as citizens made their comments about Senate Bill 881, a bill to provide for the settlement of certain claims under the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA).

The bill would allow Sealaska to select close to 68,000 acres of Tongass National Forestland for logging as well as 3,600 acres of sacred sites, and 5,000 acres for future use sites.

The most apparent concern of citizens at the meeting was over how the bill was dividing citizens of southeast Alaska.

Shareholders of Sealaska at the meeting who spoke were all in support of the bill, however some said the negativity of those opposed to the bill made them feel threatened.

Skip Hallingstad, a lifelong resident of Petersburg and Sealaska shareholder said he supports the bill.

“I appreciate Sen. Murkowski’s courage to support our cause and stand up for what she believes is right for the native peoples of southeast Alaska,” Hallingstad said. “Hopefully it will be a fair and just closure to a process nearly 40 years in the making.”

Will Ware, of Petersburg, reported to those in attendance that the Petersburg Indian Association supports the bill. He also said he does not want to see division because of the bill.

“I don’t want to create a divisiveness in our community. My children go to school with your children, we share meals together, we’ve shared in businesses together,” Ware said.

The timing of the bill and the short amount of time for public testimony irked some speakers.

Joseph Sebastian, who built a house and raised a family at Point Baker, gave passionate criticism of the bill.

“The process has been rather skullduggery and underhanded until just the eleventh hour,” Sebastian said. “This bill was so shocking that nobody could swallow it.”

Joan Kelser, who said she has spent the majority of her adult life in Point Baker raising a family, agreed.

“It should be obvious that a backroom corporate generated lands bill that is pitting shareholder neighbor against non-shareholder neighbor is bad policy,” Kelser said.

Sebastian also pointed out that the meeting was only for public testimony, not a committee meeting. He said he wanted Sen. Murkowski to be present.

He said he believed the meeting was “intended to pacify public outcry … in favor of a crooked outcome.”

“It’s clear that Lisa Murkowski has lost touch with reality and no longer deserves the honor of serving the citizens of southeast Alaska,” Sebastian said.

The divisive nature of the bill is what brought Petersburg resident Don Cornelius to give his testimony.

“It just re-opens old wounds and I don’t want to be a part of it,” Cornelius said. “This bill is divisive. It pits some Sealaska shareholders against other forest user groups over an issue that was resolved back in 1971.”

LOGGING CONCERNS
Other points of contention and concern surrounded past logging practices of Sealaska.

Cornelius, who served as a habitat biologist with the Alaska Department of Fish and Game said he had firsthand experience with Sealaska logging practices.

Cornelius said he witnessed Sealaska loggers dragging timber across the backs of salmon as they traveled upstream to spawn. He said he turned in those loggers.

“Man did I get pressured to look the other way,” Cornelius said. “I didn’t and Sealaska paid a fine.”

Cornelius said that after that incident Sealaska used political pressure to avoid those incidents.

“Sealaska then applied political pressure that eliminated protection from any fish stream that was not physically marked in an atlas,” Cornelius said. “A process that took a year or more.”

Will Ware, of Petersburg, said that those types of incidents are history, and that logging practices have changed — as sustainability has become an issue.

“We have grown, we’ve evolved, we’ve changed to become more environmentally friendly,” Ware said.

Ware compared the evolvement of the logging industry to the evolvement of sustainable fisheries in the area — a point of pride in southeast Alaska.

“We have right now the best practices of fisheries management,” Ware said.

Ware said the bill would help the economy in the area.

“We are stifling economic growth where we desperately need it,” Ware said.

Ron Wolfe, natural resource manager for Sealaska Corp. seconded Ware’s testimony about sustainability.

“This legislation is necessary to fulfill a promise of ANCSA to create sustainable economies. What this legislation will enable us to do is to have a selection of ANCSA land that will afford us the ability and the opportunities to create these sustainable economies,” Wolfe said. “Sealaska’s concept of sustainability is one that recognizes first our ancestral, cultural and heritage and the sociological issues that face Alaska’s natives today.”

Wolfe said he felt intimidated by some of the testimony.

“As I was sitting there listening to this very impassioned testimony … I couldn’t help but to feel quite intimidated,” Wolfe said. “I’m here to say that I’m proud of our record at Sealaska.”

Brenda Louise, a lifelong Petersburg resident and Sealaska shareholder said she admitted that native corporations had done damage in the past and wants good stewardship of the lands into the future.

“This land settlement can be productive and responsible,” Louise said.

Skip Hallingstad compared the relative proportion of the lands proposed in the bill to that of the Tongass National Forest — land that once belonged to his ancestors.

“True to the native tradition we will stand proud and fight,” Hallingstad said. “Even if only for the last remaining scraps of a once mighty cultural landscape in existence for thousands of years.”

TOO RUSHED AND NOT DESCRIPTIVE
Julianne Curry, executive director of the Petersburg Vessel Owners Association said she would like to see points of the bill clarified and more descriptive to avoid problems in the future.

“I would like to see that there is clarification of different terms, and intent language developed,” Curry said. “Although economic development is a really fantastic idea, it would be best if this didn’t create additional conflicts between existing users.”

“We believe that protection of fisheries resources and habitat for future generations should be paramount,” she said.

GOVERNMENT BAILOUT AND PRECEDENT
Some citizens giving testimony raised concerns that this bill was a form of corporate government bailout; and that it would allow other private corporations to gain public land in the future.

Kleeschulte addressed the concern, and said Sealaska’s position was unique.

“We have talked to all of the heads of other native corporations. They have all agreed that they will not use this bill as a precedent to see that the lands act is re-opened,” Kleeschulte said. “Now that is not a binding commitment, but they have all said that they understand that Sealaska’s unique circumstance was considerably different from what they faced up north.”

Sebastian pointed out that lands that Sealaska was seeking had over $100 million worth of taxpayer roads on them, making prime logging land a “turnkey,” operation for the corporation.

Martha Smith, a 15-year resident of southeast Alaska said she sees the bill endangering communities surrounding the proposed land.

“I oppose S. 881 because it is equivalent to a taxpayer bailout of a corporation which has so irresponsibly managed its resources that it has endangered not only its own economic survival, but more importantly the survival of communities dependent on intact forest and marine ecosystems,” Smith said.

Joan Kelser was very blunt about her feelings on the bill.

“It’s a bad piece of legislation,” Kelser said. “This bill is bad for small communities, bad for subsistence, bad for wildlife, bad for fisheries, bad for the visitor industry and bad for the future.”