Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 48

Thread: Native Nam Vets Land Allotments

  1. #1
    Member anonymous1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Kodiak Is.
    Posts
    304

    Angry Native Nam Vets Land Allotments

    Now I`m not anti native and no one has more respect than I for those who have served our country and protected our rights, but for the Feds to be passing out new 160 acre allotments out WIld Life Refuge lands with out a public process or protection of public access to some of the best hunting in Alaska really sucks and smacks of Uncle Ted or Don.

    http://www.doi.gov/ocl/2002/hr3148.htm

    Some new BLM surveys on Kodiak Is. near my place prompted me to investigate. About 2 years to late.
    Apparently these allotments are being handed out far removed from the process and public protections that were in place for other allotments. The Refuge says its a done deal. Anybody have any insight into how it all came about.

  2. #2
    Member Marc Taylor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Anchorage, AK
    Posts
    1,279

    Angry

    Laughable and sad at the same time.

    No, pathetic. Yeah, that's the right word for this.

    Disturbingly pathetic?

    Thanks for sharing, but at the same time, ruining my day.

    Taylor

  3. #3

    Default Been in the works

    for awhile. I am not 100% sure, but the bill was introduced and approved because these vets were serving in Nam when the allotments were being done. The big thing now is they shouldn't be allowed to select places that are used by the public, but I doubt the govt. really cares to be honest with you. By the summer of 2010, all native lands should be conveyed and we will all KNOW who owns what.

  4. #4

    Default Native

    The word NATIVE is what chaps my B**T. It seems the state doesn't care if other citizens of this state were deployed to the armed forces at the time in question. ONLY NATIVES are allowed to particapate; everybody else can just suck swampwater !!
    " Americans will never need the 2nd Amendment, until the government tries to take it away."

    On the road of life..... Pot holes keep things interesting !

  5. #5
    Member AkGreg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Anchorage
    Posts
    324

    Default Long process

    This has been going on since Dec 20th 1971.... When ANSCA passed there was a flaw in the process that meant those who were ENTITLED to receive a portion of the land that was stolen from them in the begining could not participate in the land selections.... thus they lost out their opportunity to receive their own F&*%^ing land because they were defending our country

    so the vets got SCREWED TWICE.... This 37 year battle is finally coming to a close.... this is not a new land issue, this is just putting to rest the massive screwing they got....

    I am a vet and I am indian however I do not have any claim to any of these lands or processes just FYI....

    Please take a moment and become informed on some of the issues before flying off the handle with comments like some of the ones above... thank you.

    OH BTW... this is NOT a state issue at all.... this is all FED

    Greg

  6. #6
    Member martentrapper's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Fairbanks, Ak.
    Posts
    4,190

    Default

    None of you are completely right.
    The Native Allotment Act was passed waaaaayyyyy back in 1909. It allowed indigenous people to select up to 160 acres of land in an area they, or their family, had traditionally used. You could say this was the native version of the Homestead Act. I'll remind you all the private property is a given in the USA.
    ANILCA, passed and went into implementation in 1971. It ended the Native Allotment Act. There is a specific date in 1971 which ended native allotment applications. However, it was noted years later, that some natives (I think this act applied to all natives in the US) were in Vietnam, or the military other places, and were unable to get an application in before the deadline. A few years ago, don't know how many, Some congressman put together legislation to allow these native veterans to apply for an allotment. I'll also remind folks that in 1971, ANCSA refuges, parks, preserves, etc. did not exist. The legislation passed and Native vets are getting an opportunity they missed out on while serving their country. I'd also like to remind you guys that MOST of these native vets were probably there involuntarily.............being that they were drafted. I suspect most of you would be rather upset if you lost out on free land cuz you were forced into the military.
    These allotments are not allowed just anywhere. The applicant is supposed to show prior use by family.
    I don't see much to complain about here!
    I can't help being a lazy, dumb, weekend warrior.......I have a JOB!
    I have less friends now!!

  7. #7
    Member mod elan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Glennallen
    Posts
    1,476

    Default

    One of the complaints is they are selecting lands that they in no way have had anything traditional to do with EVER. Not to mention have never even been to by them or their ancestors. They are selecting them based on mining operations during the 1900's. I am using the Wrangell-St.Elias park as the example here. I recently checked some areas in the park that I know were not conveyed previous to this fall and all of a sudden there were some more marked. Irritating this is taking so long to get finished.

  8. #8
    Member anonymous1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Kodiak Is.
    Posts
    304

    Default ooch

    akGreg
    I apreciate your comments and I have no beef with you getting what you are entitled.
    It just seems that a process that leaves out other users like those who qualified for 14c of the original land claim act and gives land without a prior use or occupancy requirment will see a lot of the land sold to big operators for lodges and such making it harder for management and Joe hunter



    "Additionally, H.R. 3148 may eliminate the standard Allotment Act rules concerning use and occupancy of the land. This changes previous tenets of law for occupancy of public lands.

    In a related issue, it is unclear whether H.R. 3148 would eliminate the requirement of the 1906 Native Allotment Act that an applicant must be a resident of Alaska. Allowing Native allotments in Alaska for non-residents, many of whom have never lived in Alaska, we believe would be totally contrary to the intent of both the 1906 Act and the 1998 Alaska Native Veterans Allotment Act. While we do not interpret the language in H.R. 3148 as eliminating the residency requirement, we wish to make it clear that we are opposed to any effort to eliminate this requirement and we object to any language which could be interpreted to do so.

    HR 3148 provides for legislative approval of all applications eighteen months after the filing deadline.
    This, combined with the rescission of the regulations, virtually assures that most applications will be approved without the regular review process and without the applicants demonstrating that they used and occupied the claimed land in accordance with the 1906 Native Allotment Act and remaining regulations. Persons who do not meet the use and occupancy requirements can apply for land secure in the knowledge that because of short time frames and lack of regulations, BLM will not be able to field examine and adjudicate most claims by the deadline and most will ultimately be legislatively approved. This will encourage wrongful claims and result in wrongful conveyance of Federal land. It will also render ineffective the protections provided to conservation system units (CSU's) by Section (1)(a)(5) of the existing law."

  9. #9
    Member AkGreg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Anchorage
    Posts
    324

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by martentrapper View Post
    None of you are completely right.
    The Native Allotment Act was passed waaaaayyyyy back in 1909. It allowed indigenous people to select up to 160 acres of land in an area they, or their family, had traditionally used. You could say this was the native version of the Homestead Act. I'll remind you all the private property is a given in the USA.
    ANILCA, passed and went into implementation in 1971. It ended the Native Allotment Act. There is a specific date in 1971 which ended native allotment applications. However, it was noted years later, that some natives (I think this act applied to all natives in the US) were in Vietnam, or the military other places, and were unable to get an application in before the deadline. A few years ago, don't know how many, Some congressman put together legislation to allow these native veterans to apply for an allotment. I'll also remind folks that in 1971, ANCSA refuges, parks, preserves, etc. did not exist. The legislation passed and Native vets are getting an opportunity they missed out on while serving their country. I'd also like to remind you guys that MOST of these native vets were probably there involuntarily.............being that they were drafted. I suspect most of you would be rather upset if you lost out on free land cuz you were forced into the military.
    These allotments are not allowed just anywhere. The applicant is supposed to show prior use by family.
    I don't see much to complain about here!
    Land bills and ownership laws are always complex and overlapping... just a couple of thoughts...

    The Viet nam Vet bill attempts to correct a single oversight in the passing of ANSCA. ANSCA or the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act passed and was enacted on Dec 18th 1971. the passing of that bill altered/killed the 1906 Native Allotment act... in Essence, ANSCA was the final answer to numerous land ownership issues that collided in the late 50's and into the late 60's.

    ANILCA or the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act passed in Dec 1980... Dec 2nd I think.... That was the law that established LOTS of different public lands, parks, scenic river designations etc....

    The laws are VERY different in their intent, scope, purpose and target audience... of course there is some overlap because of the overriding issue being lands, and land ownership and access...

    The Vets bill merely tries to allow those vets who missed out on the ANSCA law of 1971 to choose their lands as entitled.....

    The comments about choosing land that is not historically used by the person or their tribe... I totally agree that it should not be allowed as it is abusing the system and the intent of the law... I think and hope there are protections in place to prevent that as noted by MT above...

    Again, I hold no claim to any of these lands or programs in this thread.... just trying to correct some misinformation that's out there....

    G

  10. #10
    Member martentrapper's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Fairbanks, Ak.
    Posts
    4,190

    Default

    Doggonit..........for the first time I was wrong on here!!! I swapped ANILCA and ANCSA.
    Thank You greg.
    I can't help being a lazy, dumb, weekend warrior.......I have a JOB!
    I have less friends now!!

  11. #11
    Member anonymous1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Kodiak Is.
    Posts
    304

    Default History of Injustice

    is to correct one with another.
    Think of low mountain valley full of deer and a few brown bear. Mountian goats at 1500' on the surrounding ridges. A small stream winding down into a deep water lagoon (just right for a boat basin) with ducks and seals empting into a protected pristine cove with white sand beachs and the only access into the enchanted valley.
    This is a spot with a long long history of use by local subsistance users, recreational campers, DIY hunters and professional guides and transporters. This is an area where the Refuge has had successful campaingn to purchase back every inholding and has spent millions to eliminated private holdings.
    Now along comes a guy who is qualified to choose this spot for his very own with no strings attatched. He has no prior use of the land, few if any ties to the local community that uses the land and is well connected in business and politics.
    So what will he do. Maybe move in build a nice cabin and live in harmony with his neighbors and allow traditional access across his land to the happy hunting grounds beyond. Maybe sell it back into the Refuge at a modest price for habitat protection. Or maybe get together with some associates and bring in the bulldozers.
    I know I am being cynical but when the helicopters full of BLM surveyors showed up it was already a done deal and to late to do or say anything except vent here. What I`m saying is the system that allowed this really sucks and this instance is just the tip.

  12. #12
    Supporting Member Amigo Will's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Wrangell
    Posts
    7,599

    Default

    I'm happy to see any vet get something for their service.Here we are 38 years later and the V.N. vets are finaly getting a reward.How long will it take our your men and women serveing today to get their due.JMHO

  13. #13
    Member
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Fairbanks
    Posts
    266

    Default

    I for one am happy for the Nam Vets and I think that ALL Alaska Natives should get another chance at the allotment process to the same time frame! Just my opinion!

  14. #14
    Member BRWNBR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Big Lake
    Posts
    8,435

    Default

    This is not a VV reward, its just a delayed action becasue the guys weren't around when it happened.
    I got no problem letting the natives have piles and piles of the best land we have....but if they are gonna be given stuff based off a traditional use, i was to see them use it traditionaly, tools, timing..the works.
    The Race/Ethinicity card is being played hard here and they usually are when alaska natives are inlolved, they want the whales,seals and walrus, but they want the boat, motor and the guns...bring the best of both words but still have the tribal power to tell the troopers to shove off....and they will.
    This is all coming from a people who never had a belief on owning land or air or animals, now charge people by the animals for trespass fees to THEIR land...
    dangle the carrot.....
    Www.blackriverhunting.com
    Master guide 212

  15. #15
    Member stevelyn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Fairbanksan in Aleutian Hell
    Posts
    1,316

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by brav01 View Post
    The word NATIVE is what chaps my B**T. It seems the state doesn't care if other citizens of this state were deployed to the armed forces at the time in question. ONLY NATIVES are allowed to particapate; everybody else can just suck swampwater !!
    Fishermen got screwed too because they were in the military at the time.
    Now what ?

  16. #16
    Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    NorthWest Alaska
    Posts
    3,635

    Default

    Its threads like these that gives you insite on a fellas outlook tward others.

  17. #17

    Default This was/has

    been in the works for a long time. It will be interesting to see how/what lands they are allowed to select. I have no problem letting them get something they missed because they were in Vietnam. I know a few guys that have been working on their allotments. I do think that they should only be able to select in certain areas though.

  18. #18
    Member KRS's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Arizona
    Posts
    362

    Default

    Since when does abiding by the laws of this country (showing up for a draft or CHOOSING to enlist) ENTITLE anyone to free land.

    That's a bunch of crapola in my opinion; and much of what is wrong with this country.

    Giving a "select few" free land

    Give the widows and children of KIA soldiers a place to build a free home !

    KRS

  19. #19
    Member Vince's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Fairbanks most the time, Ancorage some of the time,& on the road Kicking Anti's all the time
    Posts
    8,989

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by strangerinastrangeland View Post
    Its threads like these that gives you insite on a fellas outlook tward others.
    exactly.... the ones the scream the loudest are the newest ones here, sorry guys, but your beef is in the wrong tree.
    "If you are on a continuous search to be offended, you will always find what you are looking for; even when it isn't there."

    meet on face book here

  20. #20
    Member anonymous1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Kodiak Is.
    Posts
    304

    Default Its the process not the people

    I started this thread to see if anyone knew why and how this all evoled without a public process. From what I have been able to learn the only public notice was in the National Register some years back before the selections were made and because of time constraints the selections were awarded without public review.
    A little background. I fought a long hard battle to keep private cabins availabe to big game hunters where they could enjoy a reasonablly priced base for their hunts and enjoy the benifits of easy access to public lands.
    I wake up one morning to the sound of a BLM helicopter dropping a survey crew into the cove at the entrance our favorite deer and goat valley. They survey off a 160 acre tract that completely seals off safe moorage and access to this valley.
    I say hey whats going on here. The Kodiak National Wildlife Refuge says oh! that land has been awarded to a Nam Vet. I ask around the village. No one knows the claiment and no one has any knowledge of him ever using the land or having spent time in the area. The spot has a long history public use by all peoples in the area.
    My gripe is there is no access easment through the property and there was no public notice of the award even to the nearest property owners or local village authorities. It was a done deal before anyone knew.
    If anyone has ever anchored or hunted deer or goat or bear from Ivar Cove in Deadman Bay you know what I`m saying. If you would like to see pictures and a copy of the survey PM me or look up AA83522-AA in the DNR survey files.
    Hey I`m happy for the guy that got the land he got a hell of deal. But if he is just lookin for bucks Joe hunter just lost some prime access without a blink.
    I don`t mind watching a pot boil but I was only hoping someone knew more about why it was kept so hush than I do.
    You would think the Refuge would at least let us know before handing over the keys to the enchanted valley.

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

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
  •