Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act
The Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA) was signed into law by President Richard Nixon on December 18, 1971, constituting at the time the largest land claims settlement in United States history.[1][2] ANCSA was intended to resolve long-standing issues surrounding aboriginal land claims in Alaska, as well as to stimulate economic development throughout Alaska.[3]
The settlement established Alaska Native claims to the land by transferring titles to twelve Alaska Native regional corporations and over 200 local village corporations.[1] A thirteenth regional corporation was later created for Alaska Natives who no longer resided in Alaska.[1] The act is codified as 43 U.S.C. 1601 et seq.[4]
Effect of land conveyances[edit]
In 1971, barely one million acres of land in Alaska were in private hands.[33] ANCSA, together with section 6 of Alaska Statehood Act, which the new act allowed to come to fruition, affected ownership to about 148.5 million acres (601,000 km2) of land in Alaska once wholly controlled by the federal government.[33] That is larger by 6 million acres (24,000 km2) than the combined areas of Maine, Vermont, New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland and Virginia.[33]
When the bill passed in 1971, it included provisions that had never before been attempted in previous United States settlements with Native Americans.[26] The newly passed Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act created twelve Native regional economic development corporations.[26] Each corporation was associated with a specific region of Alaska and the Natives who had traditionally lived there.[26] This innovative approach to native settlements engaged the tribes in corporate capitalism.[26][34]
The idea originated with the AFN, who believed that the Natives would have to become a part of the capitalist system in order to survive.[26] As stockholders in these corporations, the Natives could earn some income and stay in their traditional villages.[35] If the corporations were managed properly, they could make profits that would enable individuals to stay, rather than having to leave Native villages to find better work.[26][35] This was intended to help preserve Native culture.[26][36]
Native and state land selection[edit]
Alaska Natives had three years from passage of ANCSA to make land selections of the 44 million acres (180,000 km2) granted under the act.[37] In some cases Native corporations received outside aid in surveying the land.[38] For instance, Doyon, Limited (one of the 13 regional corporations) was helped by the Geophysical Institute of the University of Alaska.[38] The Institute determined which land contained resources such as minerals and coal.[38] NASA similarly provided satellite imagery to aid in Native corporations finding areas most suited for vegetation and their traditional subsistence culture.[38] The imagery showed locations of caribou and moose, as well as forests with marketable timber.[38] In total about 7 million acres (28,000 km2) were analyzed for Doyon.[38] Natives were able to choose tens of thousands of acres of land rich with timber while Doyon used mineral analysis to attract businesses.[38]
The state of Alaska to date has been granted approximately 85% or 90 million acres (360,000 km2) of the land claims it has made under ANCSA.[39] The state is entitled to a total of 104.5 million acres (423,000 km2) under the terms of the Statehood Act.[40] Originally the state had 25 years after passage of the Alaska Statehood Act to file claims under section 6 of the act with the Bureau of Land Management (BLM).[40] Amendments to ANCSA extended that deadline until 1994, with the expectation that BLM would complete processing of land transfers subject to overlapping Native claims by 2009.[41] Nonetheless, some Native and state selections under ANCSA remained unresolved as late as December 2014.[42]
Criticism of ANCSA[edit]
There was largely positive reaction to ANCSA, although not entirely.[43][44] The act was supported by Natives as well as non-Natives, and likewise enjoyed bipartisan support.[43][45] Natives were heavily involved in the legislative process, and the final draft of the act used many AFN ideas.[46]
Some Natives have argued that ANCSA has hastened cultural genocide of Alaska Natives.[47][48] Some Natives critiqued ANCSA as an illegitimate treaty since only tribal leaders were involved and the provisions of the act were not voted on by indigenous populations.[48] One native described it as a social and political experiment.[48] Critics have also argued that Natives so feared massacre or incarceration that they offered no resistance to the act.[48]
Others have argued that the settlement was arguably the most generous afforded by the United States to a Native group. They note that some of the largest and most profitable corporations in the state are the twelve created by ANCSA.[49][50] Other critics attacked the act as "Native welfare" and such complaints continue to be expressed.[44]
The corporation system has been critiqued, as in some cases stockholders have sold land to outside corporations that have leveled forests and extracted minerals.[51] But supporters of the system argue that it has provided economic benefits for indigenous peoples that outweigh these problems.[52][53]