What People Think
 |
 |
31% For, 69% Against
Take Action
| Vote on this Bill | |
  |
For |
  |
Against |
| Speak Out | |
  |
Comment on this Bill |
  |
Alert Your Friends and Colleagues |
  |
Write Your Representative in Congress |
| Save & Share | |
 |
del.icio.us |
 |
Digg |
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
 |
Yahoo! |
S. 881, The Southeast Alaska Native Land Entitlement Finalization Act
Revision History 
Below is the revision history of this article.
(Learn how to edit the WashingtonWatch.com wiki.)
(Latest | Earliest)
To look at a past version, click on its date. To compare any two versions, select their radio buttons and click on "Compare Selected Versions." To compare a past version with the current version, click on (cur). To compare a version with the preceding version, click on (last).
Learn More
RSS Feeds for This Bill
Keep yourself updated on user contributions and debates about this bill! (Learn more about RSS.)
Visitor Comments
moby dick
October 7, 2009, 2:39am (report abuse)Removal of restrictive covenants in Alaska in National Forests, Monuments, and Parks is the dirty little secret of the S 811.
S 881 in section 18A would attack the restrictive covenant ANILCA enacted [(43 U.S.C. 1613(h)(1))] which prohibited the alteration of a historic or cultural site. Once h1 restrictive covenants are violated on the Tongass, any Native Corporation will be able to turn cutural sites now protected by the restrictive covenants into any concievable commercial venture within National Parks, Monuments, or National Forests.
Congress intended for ANILCA to protect land for public use while allowing Natives the cultural use of land they held sacred, not the commerical exploitation of that land.
Myla Poelstra
October 7, 2009, 3:02am (report abuse)This bill, with its current selection of almost 32,000 acres of public lands on Kosciusko Island cannot be allowed to pass. The remote community of Edna
Bay stands to lose all of the public land residents have traditionally relied on to provide for their families. We have businesses dependent on continued
access to these lands. The remaining acreage will not be enough for the community to survive on.
Sealaska Corporation does not have to take public lands on this island to complete their land selections. Congress already provide them adequate lands to
choose from. Small communities such as ours should not have to sacrifice our existence for the completion of ANCSA. Should it become necessary for them to make selections outside the withdrawal area, there are many other suitable places for them to choose from, away from remote communities.
Ma Baker
October 7, 2009, 3:38am (report abuse)Almost the entire communities of Pt Baker and Port Portection on Prince of Wales Island signed a petition presented to Congress which opposes S811. Half the timber has been cut on Northern Prince of Wales Island. Cutting more, and Sealaska has a history of cutting every tree from mountain top to stream bottom, would ring the death knoll for the deer, bear, and birds on the island. This is a bad bill and Congress should not waste its time on it. Only five Senators have endorsed it, including Democrat Begich and Republican Murkowski. Let it die in Committee.