Murkowski mediates panel discussing federal role in Alaska land management
by Jeff Richardson / jrichardson@newsminer.com
Aug 15, 2011 | 5074 views | 16 16 comments | 6 6 recommendations | email to a friend | print
Sen. Lisa Murkowski, far right, leads a panel discussion on Monday afternoon, Aug. 15, 2011, at the University of Alaska Fairbanks Davis Concert Hall. John Wagner/News-Miner
Sen. Lisa Murkowski, far right, leads a panel discussion on Monday afternoon, Aug. 15, 2011, at the University of Alaska Fairbanks Davis Concert Hall. John Wagner/News-Miner
slideshow
Sen. Lisa Murkowski, center, listens to the testimony of Attorney General John Burns, left, during a panel discussion on Monday afternoon, Aug. 15, 2011, at the University of Alaska Fairbanks Davis Concert Hall. John Wagner/News-Miner
Sen. Lisa Murkowski, center, listens to the testimony of Attorney General John Burns, left, during a panel discussion on Monday afternoon, Aug. 15, 2011, at the University of Alaska Fairbanks Davis Concert Hall. John Wagner/News-Miner
slideshow
FAIRBANKS — Sen. Lisa Murkowski said years of simmering unease about federal land management in Alaska recently erupted into outright anger.

She said the “tipping point” in that relationship — the arrest of 71-year-old Central resident Jim Wilde during a contentious boat check on the Yukon River last September — has illustrated the need to improve the relationship between the state and federal government.

“I think there is a hightened sense that enforcement with federal agencies has just topped out,” Murkowski said.

The Alaska Republican said she had that in mind when she arranged a roundtable discussion Monday between a group of six state and federal officials at the University of Alaska Fairbanks. The discussion, witnessed by about 40 people at Davis Concert Hall, was designed to look at ways to achieve some common ground between state and federal managers.

State officials believe Alaska has sovereign rights over its navigable waters — even those that pass through federal lands. Attorney General John Burns said the state’s jurisdiction is clear, citing laws that include the Statehood Act and the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act.

Murkowski agrees, saying it’s obvious the intent of ANILCA was to treat federal lands in Alaska differently than those in the Lower 48.

But federal officials at the discussion said it isn’t that clear cut. Greg Dudgeon, the superintendent of the Yukon-Charley Rivers National Preserve, said the state and federal government can and should share jurisdiction.

Dudgeon said the Park Service has an obligation to protect the quality of its land, and managing the watersheds that run through them needs to be a part of that. Activities that could harm those waterways need to be monitored, he said.

Mitch Ellis, the regional chief for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, said federal officials also have an obligation to make sure people are acting safely when they recreate on federal lands.

Since the presence of the state and U.S. Coast Guard alone can’t keep up with that task, he said it makes sense for other agencies, such as Park Service rangers, to coordinate the effort together.

“I think that serves the taxpayers well,” Ellis said. “It makes our tax dollars go farther.”

But Craig Fleener, deputy commissioner of the Alaska Department of Fish and Game, said the disputes aren’t typically about law-enforcement powers, but are more often “values” disagreements between state and federal managers.

“The people of Alaska shouldn’t be afraid of their government,” Fleener said. “They shouldn’t be afraid to hunt and fish.”

Burns said federal agencies have demonstrated “unprecedented overreach” in recent years. He cited permit requirements for mushers guiding dog teams down rivers in national parks and the prohibition of hovercraft on similar waters.

Burns said the state has filed numerous lawsuits against the federal government to assert its role in land management, but he believes they’re necessary to keep the state from falling victim to expanding federal reach.

“Once you lose a right, it’s so difficult to regain it,” he said.

He said the ultimate solution should come from Congress, which needs to clarify jurisdiction issues on Alaska’s waterways.

“The real fix is the recognition of what the state’s sovereign authority is all about … Unless that is corrected, we will revisit this issue time and again,” he said.

In response to the Wilde incident, Rep. Don Young, R-Alaska, successfully attached language to an Interior Appropriations bill that would make boating and other activities inside the Yukon-Charley National Preserve off-limits to National Park Service enforcement.

Murkowski said she’d like a broader solution than the one called for in Young’s rider, which she described as a “very specialized, almost Band-Aid-type approach to what I believe is a bigger problem.”

Murkowski said she hopes Interior Secretary Ken Salazar eases back on federal regulations on navigable waters. She agreed Congress should weigh in, but didn’t sound hopeful it would actually happen.

“Any time you wait upon an act of Congress, it’s undetermined at best about what you might expect,” she said.

Contact staff writer Jeff Richardson at 459-7518.
Comments
(16)
Comments-icon Post a Comment
bbbad93
|
August 16, 2011
I was going up the Yukon River and the Feds pulled me over to check my Boat and I said why are you pulling me over, thay said thay have the power on the river to stop and search our boat. Now lets say the local Cops pull you over and you ask, Why are you stopping me with out due cause and thay will have to back off and let you go. The feds are acting like good NAZI SS troops.
teapartypatriot_2
|
August 16, 2011
You all that are asking the federal government to get out of Alaska need to do some research to find out what the State of Alaska is doing with its land. Go to the Alaska Mapper (search google) and click on mineral estate maps. Then zero in some of the land around Quartz Lake. Then click on the query by rectangle and make a rectangle around some of the mining claims. Then click on the records link at the bottom to find who has the claims. Next take the name of the companies and go to the Department of Commerce corporate records page and find who the board of directors are and where they are located. Then you will find out that the State of Alaska is selling out the State land to foreigners.

Now do you really want the State of Alaska to manage the land?

I have committed many hours doing this type of research to confirm what I am saying.
deepbreathnow
|
August 16, 2011
U.S. out of Alaska now!!!
oldowl
|
August 16, 2011
Yes, to the comment below about the villages and local residents depending on the waterways. The NPS is there to protect residents' subsistence rights as guaranteed by ANILCA within the Preserve area and that also includes fishing on that stretch of the Yukon. Subsistence rights take priority over sport hunting and fishing in the preserve areas, although there are sport seasons as well. Would this state government be giving priority to those local residents or give sport hunters an equal shot at the game? Something to think about. They are not out there to harass people or anything of the kind. They are in charge of enforcing hunting and fishing on FEDERAL land and the water going through that area of the federal land. State troopers cannot enforce wildlife laws on federal land.

Yes, teaparty, I agree with you. The situation with the two rangers was an isolated case, not common practice with NPS, and is also an ongoing court case. A case in which in my personal opinion Wilde was guilty of violating the law and brought the whole thing on himself. NPS is now discussing issues with locals to improve their relationships but we have politicians fanning the flames for votes. The law is clear on who has the authority. It only makes sense to have federal authorities doing the law enforcement on federal lands and on the waterways within and adjacent to them - unless you are a senseless politician.
islandliver
|
August 16, 2011
Lisa Murkycow and Dung Young are about as hypocritical as any two could be. Today Murky is against all this federal intervention into Alaska. But only a week or two ago she was calling over the villagers of Alaska needing the feds to come and provide local police to protect the residents. That seems like a pretty good juxtaposition to me. Dung talks about getting rid of the fed but never fails to get his pork projects funded. Again he is pretty flip-floppy in his own actions: end the fed control but keep the fed revenues in Alaska.

Too bad so many have made thier own interpretation of Alaska history. That is especially true when I read the claims on how the feds have taken away something from State. Historicaly the lands in Alaska were all federal lands in the territory of Alaska. So since the State of Alaska came after the territory it is more accurate to say the feds are still holding on to what was theirs in the first place.

As unhappy as you might be about the federal government and its dealings in Alaska, it should make you wonder how it would be if Alaska was still a territory. Do you think some self serving political territorial manager over the territory would be better? I seriously doubt it would be.

aurorawatcher
|
August 16, 2011
Let's pause to remember Walter Hickel who tried to force the feds to live up to our statehood compact. This is an excerpt from a news article in 1993.

"Now, using a legal stick to promote his political philosophy, Mr. Hickel is contending that the Federal Government owes the state at least $29 billion for all the land it has taken out of development. The statehood compact requires that 90 percent of all revenue from oil, mineral and gas leasing on Alaska's Federal land be given to the state. By withdrawing more than 100 million acres from potential development, the suit says, the Government has taken away the state's ability to derive income from those lands."

I ran the 29 billion through an inflation calculator. For perspective's sake, that 1993 figure is now equal to just shy of $3 TRILLION. That's what the federal government owes the people of Alaska for violating our statehood compact and ANILCA and locking up access to most of the OUR land!
Luntzd
|
August 16, 2011
"A big part of the problem is ignorance of these laws by people like those on the Yukon and the anti-federal govt. sentiment on nearly every single issue whipped up by people like Murkowski and Young". ???????

I can not believe there are those in Alaska willing and supporting the FED having a bigger role in Alaskan's Natural Resources.

I agree that the feds should take care of National Monuments, Military Installations and Federal Office Bldgs. They can respectfully return all other lands to the people of this Great State.

Teaparty?? You do realize the Teaparty is for smaller government right??

Invictus I agree with you "The state is perfectly capable of managing these lands to the benefit of the residents of Alaska at no cost to the federal gov't. The Republic would save billions of dollars and the citizens would be served by an attentive and responsive gov't that is more amenable to serving the people's needs -- not the bureaucrats' and politicians' needs.

GIVE THE LAND BACK!

teapartypatriot_2
|
August 16, 2011
The comments here (except mine) completely ignore the abuses against the residents of this state by the State of Alaska. The State of Alaska has a consistent record of abusing Alaskan residents more than the Federal Government. The local area land manager at DNR for the Interior acts like HE owns the land. His determination to protect the Goodpaster residents far out way his dedication to the general population. He has restricted access to the Shaw Creek Hillside Road to the Japanese Pogo mine operators and some logging companies while shutting out Alaskans from using the first 23 miles of that road which is on a public right of way. This is the type of inconsiderate self centered people we have governing the State of Alaska lands. If the general public travel that road they will be arrested by the Alaska State Troopers although they know they cannot win in court.

What the federal agents did at the Yukon River is an isolated case.
Bobzilla
|
August 16, 2011
(Oldowl)

"Waterways in National Parks are governed by the NPS and boating safety enforced in all of them. Alaska is and should be no different."

So if everyone else does it wrong we should too?



Ok flippant responses aside, Most other states have more infrastructure in highway systems etc. By definition we ARE different. Many villages and towns have depended solely on the waterways for their existence. That need alone should give the State more weight in any proceedings.
Invictus
|
August 16, 2011
I think Alaska is different and should be self-determined, rather than by D.C. policy wonks and politicians who manipulate emotion and Alaska's resources to buy votes.

oldowl
|
August 16, 2011
This roundtable was a political move on Murkowski's part and shows her ignorance of the laws involved. So far as mushers having permits goes - that probably stems from the laws requiring concessionaires operating on park land to have permits. There was a 2000 Supreme Court decision on whether the NPS could regulate commercial tourboat operations on Rainy Lake within Voyageurs National Park. It was decided in favor of the Park.

USC161a -2h: authorizes NPS to "promulgate and enforce regulations concerning boating and other activities on or relating to waters located within areas of the National Park system."

CFR36, Sec.1.2- "waters subject to the jurisdiction of the United States located within the boundaries of the National Park system ..."

Part II, 3.5: "Authorized persons may at any time stop or board a vessel to examine documents, licenses, or permits..."

Part II,sec.2.3: "The regulations contained in this section apply, regardless of land ownership, on all lands and waters within a park area that are under the legislative jurisdiction of the United States."

ANILCA,Title XIII, paragraph 1319: "Nothing in this Act shall be construed as limiting or restricting the power and authority of the United States or ...

1)as affecting in any way any law governing appropriation or use of or Federal right to, water on lands within the state of Alaska...

All laws passed by the same Congress Murkowski is a part of and our state is represented in. A big part of the problem is ignorance of these laws by people like those on the Yukon and the anti-federal govt. sentiment on nearly every single issue whipped up by people like Murkowski and Young.Waterways in National Parks are governed by the NPS and boating safety enforced in all of them. Alaska is and should be no different.

mcgillagorilla
|
August 16, 2011
where is the joe vogler when we need him. i am tired of the federal workers acting like they are a cut above the average alaskan. we are not serfs to the federal goverment.
teapartypatriot_2
|
August 16, 2011
The simple solution is to convey all land in Alaska to the federal government. The State of Alaska Division of Natural Resources is a colossal failure. They have messed up land and access to land to the point that we would be better off under full federal protection. The out dated state mining laws have allowed foreign corporations to lock up millions of acres of state land into dormant mining claims so Alaskans can no longer file on these claims. The State of Alaska has taken native allotments where heirs could not be found and keeps them locked up even after the heirs are found. TCC has hundreds of appeals on this that the State of Alaska refuses to process. The State of Alaska Division of Lands has granted limited access on public right of ways to Japanese mining companies while Alaskans using these public right of ways have been arrested and harassed for years through state court appearances only to have the court case dismissed. The case of Roger Brown is an example of this.

Look up case Case 4FA-08-2280CR Docket at Alaska Court View showing a 3 year history of court hearings that Roger Brown had to attend. Then the Alaska courts abruptly dismissed the case after three years and over a hundred court appearances.

Invictus
|
August 16, 2011
Simple solution: convey all federal lands, save military installations, to the state of Alaska. The state is perfectly capable of managing these lands to the benefit of the residents of Alaska at no cost to the federal gov't. The Republic would save billions of dollars and the citizens would be served by an attentive and responsive gov't that is more amenable to serving the people's needs -- not the bureaucrats' and politicians' needs.
swanny1790
|
August 16, 2011
June69, money is only 1 of many factors. Bureacracies are all about power and control. The more power they have to control human behavior, the stronger (and more powerful) the bureaucracy becomes.

"Power" is the ability to make other people do your bidding. There are three basic sources of power. Persuasion, which is rarely used at any level of government. Money, which is used in vast quanitities by all levels of government. Force, which in this case tends to be overused by at least the NPS players involved.

Control over the colony of Alaska is far to important to our Federal overlords to permit them to relinquish any degree of power and control to those of us who actually live here. Hence, the micromanagement of Alaska and our allegedly "public" lands and resources that isn't practiced in any other State.

It is largely that unusual degree of control that prevents Alaska from achieving an equal status to other States, thus maintaining our status as a colony rather than a State with equal authority and self determination of the other 49.

and THAT is about all the poltical philosphy I can muster before the first cup of coffee this morning.....
june69
|
August 16, 2011
lets get a bunch of people in a room to justify their own existance while overlooking one of the most obvious, we have two groups of people that are arguing over who should get paid to take care of something yet we are paying two groups of people to do the same job? in our economy? state has an abundence of cash resources by comparison to the feds and they have managed that land successfully for decades so why pay a fed to do something that is already being taken care of? Oh, they want some money, silly me.
Newsminer.com encourages a lively exchange of ideas regarding topics in the news. Users are solely responsible for the content. Comments are not pre-approved by News-Miner staff. Please keep it clean, respect others and use the 'report abuse' link when necessary. Read our full user's agreement.