Results 1 to 13 of 13

Thread: Klutina Road Agreement - The Final Chapter?

  1. #1
    Member BluNosDav's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Eagle River, AK
    Posts
    519

    Default Klutina Road Agreement - The Final Chapter?

    https://craigmedred.news/2017/08/25/war-of-roads/

    Feel free to talk among yourselves, if that's still permitted?
    "Luckily, enforcement reads these forums, and likely will peruse this one...Especially after a link of it is forwarded to them....." - AlaskaHippie.

  2. #2
    Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2016
    Location
    Alaska
    Posts
    841

    Default

    Public comments can be made until August 30 at klutina.settlement@alaska.gov ...if you can take the time to spout your opinion here, send it to the email address klutina.settlement@alaska.gov
    “I would rather have questions that can't be answered than answers that can't be questioned.” Physicist ― Richard Feynman


  3. #3
    Member coho slayer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Anchorage
    Posts
    3,026

    Default

    From what I've seen and experienced, AHTNA feels entitled to do whatever they want.

  4. #4
    Member J2theD's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Anchorage
    Posts
    307

    Default

    They have already locked up god knows how much land with all their parcels and lack of easements along the Richardson and Parks, now they need this too...?

    "No one can moose hunt on our lands except AHTNA shareholders."

    "We also want a special community moose hunt with an earlier season and special regulations."

  5. #5
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Interior Alaska
    Posts
    893

    Default

    The last time I was up to the mouth of the Klutina River, at the effluent of Klutina Lake, was during moose season, perhaps 21-23 years ago. I have thought about heading that way again, mainly for the purpose of fishing lake trout (a guy can hunt moose in a kazillion other places).

    The tensions were a bit high back then, but not so much with what was then a fairly scarce/sparse Ahtna Security crew, but rather mostly with reports of infrequent episodes involving younger men of Corporation membership who had reportedly been drinking a bit, including reports of infrequent breaking of motor vehicle windows, puncturing tires, etc., involving those they deemed didn't belong there.

    I can't attest to any of that being accurate or not, as I never witnessed any of it, nor did I fall prey to it.

    The absence of easements provides a point of contention. but the land closures by itself causes me to conclude this; if it's theirs, then it's theirs. Just as I dictate who comes and goes from my land. Though my land has required easements, too, even when I wish it didn't. :^(

  6. #6
    Member 4merguide's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Kenai Peninsula, Alaska
    Posts
    11,459

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by J2theD View Post
    They have already locked up god knows how much land with all their parcels and lack of easements along the Richardson and Parks, now they need this too...?

    "No one can moose hunt on our lands except AHTNA shareholders."

    "We also want a special community moose hunt with an earlier season and special regulations."
    Yeah, the reins need to be hauled back on those people a little. You know the old adage....."Give em' an inch..." Maybe we should get Trump in on it...???!!! Like I said before maybe us "less special" folks should start screamin' a little louder too...!!!
    Sheep hunting...... the pain goes away, but the stupidity remains...!!!

  7. #7
    Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    Wasilla
    Posts
    453

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ruffle View Post
    ..........The absence of easements provides a point of contention. but the land closures by itself causes me to conclude this; if it's theirs, then it's theirs.........
    Agreed. However, some of them (drunk or not) refuse to respect others on easements, and now want to eliminate the easement. Moreover, they also demand a priority on public lands, and that demand has been the sole source of our dual management nightmare, and many of them remain unsatisfied.

  8. #8
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Interior Alaska
    Posts
    893

    Default

    In the years past, near the end of the road immediately preceding the effluent of the lake and before the locked gate that defined one of the boundaries for the private cottages' property, there was an old, over-grown super-cub strip, thick with brush, that was supposed to be a safety zone, in terms of public parking/camping, etc.

    But if the road isn't State maintained (and I don' believe it is), and enters property designated as theirs, then they potentially have an exclusive access argument.

    The authorities and rights the Corporation asserts, legally, at least in part, go all the way back to 1865, and the U.S. Supreme Court ruling in 'Cherokee v Georgia,' and the key phrase therein; "an inter-dependent, domestic, sovereign Nation.' Then came ANCSA and ANILCA.

    As far as I know, Cherokee v. Georgia has stood as Law for 152 years, though there've been many legal skirmishes over what exactly was pre-empted or precluded by the agreements within ANCSA and ANILCA.

    But the 'separateness' and (limited) lack of total or thorough equality, at least in part, rests in standing case law by near-ancient (but accepted) SCOTUS ruing(s).

    Quote Originally Posted by RTaylor View Post
    Agreed. However, some of them (drunk or not) refuse to respect others on easements, and now want to eliminate the easement. Moreover, they also demand a priority on public lands, and that demand has been the sole source of our dual management nightmare, and many of them remain unsatisfied.

  9. #9
    Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    Wasilla
    Posts
    453

    Default

    Well, legal mumbo jumbo aside, that particular right-of-way is meaningless to me for the past 35 years since I got into an altercation at the lake. I don't go there any more. But I have no illusion that this "settlement" will settle anything, nor will it relieve the same confrontations that occur at Broad Pass, Slana, Chitina, or the Copper River Hwy. In fact, I suspect it will intensify the problems in other areas.

    I'll just avoid them and raise my own meat, thanks.

  10. #10
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Interior Alaska
    Posts
    893

    Default

    I understand what you're saying. For me, few things spoil a trip to the bush (or anywhere) like unnecessary conflict.

    And yes, the resentments aren't apt to subside for any parties in this skirmish any time soon. But the legal history might help some to understand the courts' roles that helped to shape how we ended up where we are, and why.

    Quote Originally Posted by RTaylor View Post
    Well, legal mumbo jumbo aside, that particular right-of-way is meaningless to me for the past 35 years since I got into an altercation at the lake. I don't go there any more. But I have no illusion that this "settlement" will settle anything, nor will it relieve the same confrontations that occur at Broad Pass, Slana, Chitina, or the Copper River Hwy. In fact, I suspect it will intensify the problems in other areas.

    I'll just avoid them and raise my own meat, thanks.

  11. #11

    Default

    Greed runs rampant in every nation, race, etc. It is not and never has been exclusive to "whites" of European ancestry. The Sioux ran the Cheyenne out of the Dakotas before the white man ever ran the Sioux onto reservations and no native American tribe I am aware of ever gave back one horse, piece of land or kidnaped and enslaved native to their original tribe that I know of. They conquered and kept it and now for the last 100 years a conquered people that were also conquers have been given land and untold millions in an effort to level the playing field.

    So many native corporations in Alaska have used politics and the courts to close off hundreds of thousands of acres of land to all but them, hold their hand out for millions more for free medical, hospitals and clinics and monies to up grade sewer and water systems and flood control and still complain that they need to be given more. Yet at the same time they want free unrestricted access to what every other Alaskan citizen has.

    Special hunting seasons, extended seasons, increased bag limits and opportunities, etc. No end to it.

    If they are truly a sovereign nation then be one and quit expecting the federal and state governments to subsidize so much and don't call on the troopers to stop crimes in rural villages, go deal with it like any other nation. If the United States had not bought Alaska from Russia the quality of life for Alaskan natives would not be any where near what it is today as they were a conquered people before the United States showed up.

    I am married to an Alaskan native and have many close relationships with many Alaskan native relatives and friends. That does not mean their is not a dark side to some of this native cultural and traditional use baloney, as there is and I am speaking the truth.

    The native Alaskan peoples fought other native Alaskan peoples long before the "white man" showed up. They had hatred and prejudice like every other race and had it for their fellow Alaskan natives from other groups. There were roughly 17 different recognized groups of native Alaskans at one time and to think it was all bliss is being ignorant.

    Sooner or later to be fair we should all have the same rights and privileges, regardless of race or birth right. None of us chose or parents or where we were born and none of us should be treated differently then some one else.

  12. #12
    Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Wasilla
    Posts
    548

    Default

    It appears that the State is willing to give away their rights, the rights of the entire residency of this state and any visitors from else where for benefit of just a few.

    Suppose this issue would go to court and the state were to loose. There would be much less traffic on the access and all ridiculous fees would dry up and I am sure the natives would not want that to occur.

    If the state were to win seems the same would happen. Who has the better negotiating position.
    Seems that if the natives want the road which generates their fees, then they should be the ones funding and maintaining the road, not public money.

    Natives are given extra ordinary assistance in every life endeavor and then the corporations want more, sounds like pure old greed to me, more entitlements.

    This entire preordained settlement should be scrapped. It is not in the public's best interest and therefore not be entered into by the state. The interpretations of the old federal law should be followed and adhered to as they have been in the past. Simple repeal of a statute does not in and of itself extinguish historical president unless so stated within the act repealing the prior law.

  13. #13
    Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Wasilla
    Posts
    548

    Default

    This message was created automatically by mail delivery software.

    A message that you sent could not be delivered to one or more of its
    recipients. This is a permanent error. The following address(es) failed:

    klutina.settlement@alaska.gov
    Unknown user

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •