News-Miner Editorial
Respect the land
Corporation acreage is fully private
Published Friday, August 29, 2008
Digg
delicious
Facebook
Mixx
Reddit
Stumble It!Native villages and regional corporations have been advertising hunting closures on their lands in recent weeks. Hunters should respect these decisions by the corporations and stay off the closed areas.
The closures cover large portions of Northern Alaska. That no doubt provokes some grumbling. Determining exactly where a corporate land boundary crosses a river or road isn’t always easy and takes some detailed homework. Those who do the homework will find corporate land sometimes covers prime hunting areas, no surprise since the villages associated with the corporations often are located near productive habitat or in areas where fish and game traditionally travel. Much of the corporations land lies along rivers that are generally more accessible by the average person who lacks the money for aircraft access. Everyone must squeeze into the areas that not only remain open but also offer decent hunting. Everyone, that is, but corporate shareholders, who generally retain unfettered access rights.
The grumblers should remember, though: These lands are private. They are no more public than your front yard.
That fact sometimes seems lost on people, either because they aren’t familiar with the history or they don’t like the way history unfolded. The lands, originally inhabited only by Alaska Natives, were claimed first by Russia and then, in 1867, by the United States. From the start, Native ownership was acknowledged, though often deferred, by the federal government. Native claims were recognized in the Alaska Statehood Act in 1958. But it took Congress until 1971 to formally settle them. Congress did so in a novel way — instead of establishing the traditional reservations, it granted 44 million acres to private corporations whose shareholders were Alaska Natives.
The lands were partially intended to provide income for the corporation shareholders through resource development. But they also were intended to provide a land base for lifestyles that are integrally connected with hunting and fishing. The corporate decisions to reserve these lands for shareholder use are in complete harmony with that history and those goals.
There is a lively debate among Alaskans about the nature of Alaska Native tribal sovereignty and authority, especially as our society becomes more integrated economically and socially, but that has very little to do with corporate trespass issues. There now is little disagreement that the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act of 1971 was a necessary, just and long overdue recognition of ancient ownership.
Confusion about the status of Alaska Native land claims may arise because the land often is described by government agencies separately from the 4 million acres of Alaska lands owned by other individuals and companies, both Native and non-Native. There are a few differences in law that make the distinction useful. But to the average person viewing these lands from a plane, riverboat or four-wheeler this hunting season, they’re private. So when the owner asks you to stay off, you do so.
Community Discussion
Newsminer.com doesn't necessarily condone the comments here, nor does it review every post. Read our full user's agreement.
Why didn't the editorial board make mention of the fact that certain hunting box stores have been selling package deals to people from outside the State to go hunting in these areas. These package deals do not include a local guide. How would anyone like it if someone got off a plane in your yard and began asking where can I find a moose, caribou, etc on your property.
Before it starts try not bringing the race issue into this topic, it just shows ignorance.
I hope the native corporations that all ignored us when we were trying to get support for making it a game violation to shoot alongside or into posted private property have better luck with this than us stupid regular taxpaying private citizens had.
We have had our place shot into many times over the years, had gut piles left to draw bears, etc. No one is trying to stop a single hunter here. Most hunters are ethical, but there are enough that have no regard for another guy's place that it gets to be a dangerous problem.
Fish and Game officials constantly tell people that it is okay to shoot as long as they step off the pavement. Even though it is a Class A misdemeanor to discharge a firearm in a right of way.
Sec. 11.61.210. Misconduct involving weapons in the fourth degree.
(a) A person commits the crime of misconduct involving weapons in the fourth degree if the person
(1) possesses on the person, or in the interior of a vehicle in which the person is present, a firearm when the person's physical or mental condition is impaired as a result of the introduction of an intoxicating liquor or a controlled substance into the person's body in circumstances other than described in AS 11.61.200 (a)(7);
(2) discharges a firearm from, on, or across a highway;
(3) discharges a firearm with reckless disregard for a risk of damage to property or a risk of physical injury to a person under circumstances other than those described in AS 11.61.195 (a)(3)(A);
(8)
(d) Misconduct involving weapons in the fourth degree is a class A misdemeanor.
Title 11. CRIMINAL LAW
Chapter 11.61. OFFENSES AGAINST PUBLIC ORDER
(29) "highway" means a public road, ROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY, street, alley, bridge, walk, trail, tunnel, path, or similar or related facility, as well as ferries and similar or related facilities;
Title 11. CRIMINAL LAW
Chapter 11.81. GENERAL PROVISIONS
Sec. 11.81.900. Definitions.
continued...
When several of us ordinary private interior land owners tried to get the state to address this...
The Alaska Department of Fish and Game ignored us.
Governor Palin handed us off to her attorney general who told us we had no leg to stand on and that the board of game does not have to adhere to state law in formulating regulations.
The board of game blew us off completely.
"Representative" Harris never did a thing.
None of the native Corporations we contacted as fellow private landowners to try to get a bit more oopmh behind this ever had even the grace to respond.
Evidently many folks believe that a 30.06 round going 2800 feet per second will magically stop and fall on the ground the second it gets to the edge of the right of way. Don't worry about that gal working in her garden behind those trees. Don't worry about who might be in that adjacent house. Don't worry about the machinery parcked just out of sight. Just ignore those signs. Go ahead and disregard, endanger, and disrespect everyone. Your state government says its a good idea.
So the next time anyone wants to go off about the Feds and State owning too much of Alaska just remember; the ultimate lock-up of land is private property.
Right on Taters.
Also this is the first time I've seen the DNM editorial board opine that public land might be good for something other than digging or drilling into or building upon.
Public land is important to outdoors people of all stripes and should be treated w/respect.
"The grumblers should remember, though: These lands are private. They are no more public than YOUR front yard."
lol, is that REALLY that hard for some of you to understand?
Alaska is a testament to how far the government had come along in it's relations to indigenous people, Tribes in the lower48 would have been VERY lucky to have received the same respect for their lands, hence the reason for casinos on some (NOT ALL) reservations (only since 1979 and that was ONE tribe in Florida and it wasn't easy by ANY means).
"The lands were partially intended to provide income for the corporation shareholders through resource development"
Like the guy who sits on a cooler of beer and demands 5 bucks so I can park and look at a river....give me a break...
Where is that going to happen?
What a racist statement- "Like the guy who sits on a cooler of beer and demands 5 bucks so I can park and look at a river....give me a break..."
I have nothing against the native peoples and THEIR land... I have lived with them all my life and some are family.. I love them all..what makes me really angry is they want US to RESPECT THEIR land?? what about OURS.. not necessarily my own property but the property of our TOWN?? have they walked around in the last 40 years and observed what THEIR people do to MY hometown? have they seen what THEIR people have done to the BEAUTIFUL WOODS along the trails and center of MY beautiful town? booze bottles.. everywhere..bags of garbage strewn in the woods ..it is totally disgusting and a shame to the tourists that come to VISIT our beautiful town? how do I know its THEIR people? because I have lived with them all my life and observed them in drunken state laying there enjoying their drinks.... leaving behind broken beer,alcohol bottles and plastics ones all over the ground ..years and years of this... where is the RESPECT ??? of course I will respect their land ..like you said its private property... but it makes me angry that after years of living here before it was actually documented or owned I hunted those areas with my family.....and because I cannot afford to hire a plane to take me somewhere.. because I cannot afford to get a fancy rig to go WAY back into the woods where I CAN go hunting..my only hope to try and get a moose is along the highway....... but I have to drive over 20 miles one way to find the only available spot to try... ONLY..... to some that is nothing..for me its a lot.. this year I am not hunting. I feel cheated in a way...... I am a long time Alaskan, prit near born here and lived side by side all these years.. and I think that we should be able to hunt like they get to go get a moose out of season for their potlucks......
whats that called Grandfather rights?
big heavy sigh...... times are not like they used to be....... its sad
I for one RESPECT Native land.
So because it's Native land you people shouldn't have to respect it the same as any of you would expect someone to treat YOUR property?
Now some of you might understand the meaning of Native rights along with native lands.
They were being GENEROUS by allowing non-natives to trespass all these years so some of you might want to think twice when you feel like badmouthing natives in public, consequences come in all forms (weather you remain anonymous or not).
"Where is that going to happen?
What a racist statement- "Like the guy who sits on a cooler of beer and demands 5 bucks so I can park and look at a river....give me a break..."
did he say the man was of a paticular race? It seemed to me he was simply complaining about a person demanding money for the view... how is that linked to race?
Soooo justme- I don't suppose you have any other good reason to say that the ONLY people littering in Fairbanks are Native except that you are just another piece of racist trash that needs cleaning up in our society.
I have seen PLENTY of non-Natives trash Native land along with racist anti-native graffiti pretty much wherever Natives have to live by Euro-Americans.
And don't worry, I'm sure you're going to get allot of sympathy for having to hunt elsewhere now that you've revealed what you really think about natives, good job, you're demonstrating the typical uneducated racist mind and do a much better job at proving my point than I could.
Do you really think he WASN"T isanova? that is a pretty naive statement considering the subject that he was commenting on.
I don't think he was talking about some river owned by a farmer in the lower48.
Besides that it's pretty ridiculous to say that people are going to start charging other people to "look at a river" (what does SITTING, not drinking apparently, on a cooler of beer have to do with it anyway? at least beer is legal and so is sitting on one for sure), lol where does that happen and who would be the idiot that would pay for it?
Justme
You need to move if you are that angry and full of hate.
Isanova
Are you just acting ignorant?
"There now is little disagreement that the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act of 1971 was a necessary, just and long overdue recognition of ancient ownership."
i think the "little bit" that disagree with the act are represented here with the misspelled words and bad grammar used as they make themselves look even stupider by saying ignorant things about a culture they don't even know anything about in the first place.
"ancient ownership" means they were here BEFORE your ancestors and that is our good governments way of acknowledging that (after almost a century).
Up until the land claims act was passed and each village corporation and regional corporations lands were divided and distributed it was common courtesy of hunters to ask village leaders access across lands to hunt and fish. Once ownership was established by boundries, one did not see 'do not trespass', 'private property' signs except on individual homesites. Now you can drive anywhere and see multiple signs for miles and miles.
Yes, I do know of those individuals whose lands others needed to cross in order to go to an area of hunting or fishing,that indeed do charge a fee. There are villages and corporations who also have a permit system or charge for that right. Most of the people I know already does apply for the permit and had permission prior.
I have also witnessed many of these same villages/corporation shareholders fight amongst themselves when crossing each others lands. I have seen these same initate and win trespass cases in courts and fines issued.
Most all corporations will publish well in advance the boundries of their lands. In most cases any hunter/fisherman has only to contact their land departments and get the necessary permit to cross.
Post a comment
Commenting requires registration.